Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats


Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2010 with funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 


FEB 9 B1 


CALVIN PRAKKS. ) / __^ j;^***.... 

Appellee, ) 



a Corporation, ) 

Appellant* ) 


290I.A. 597 


In an action for personal injuries, upon trial by jury, 
a rerdict I'or plaintiff was returned with damages assessed at 
^17,5GG, I'hoi court required a re-^.ittitur of 17500, overruled de- 
fendant's notion for a new trial as well as u motion uade oy it in 
arrest of judgtaent, and entered judipient in favor of plaintiff and 
afjainst defendant for the sura of ^10,000, to reverse which the de- 
fendant appeals. 

It is contended that the court erred in denying amotion of 
defendar.t at the close of all the evidence for a directed verdict 
in ^defendant's favor, in ;^ivin^ at plaintiff's request erroneous 
InBtructione, end in allowint; counsel for plaintiff in jiie arfcUiaent 
to the jury to read certain statutes of the State of Ohio, and in 
denying defendant's motion for a new ttial. After considering the 
evidence, being of the opinion that an instruction in defendant's 
favor should have teen foiven, it will not he necesB&ry to consider 
other poi'^tE, 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, plain- 
tiff was required to prove the exercise of due care for his own 

The accident in which plAintiff was severely injured oc- 
curred Fehru-iry 13, 19 31, in Ohio on U. 3, iiigiiway Mo. 20, at a 
point where the nighway passes on the east side of a farm owned 
and occupied by plaintiff. Speaking generally, tiie uifehway wae 

.B.i Q 

lea a A 



' V ^vO 


,rviA'JMO0 TH-OISHSC 2aiIU>i-l'f »il 

-«£ b&lufSBro ,00c' V 

. :3,vx| 

a jaehflE©*! 

BJy j^ixofic i80ii,.9-x a'l'txj.-J 

.i.i.v7,^X,U2 ax ' ;"i .saolioi:; '■■! 'li 

J3 loJoailb xioiJdw aaQliQu-xieai. 9iii 'to nto ^r-tooifj-Its ,3i 1)0 t^Aic 

.:. AjTrtiacf'.j'ei; ft-iTlOS 

-00 b^-xutal x;If>i5r- 
f'ortwc 'to 9f)i3 .|T... ' " 

paved with a concrete pavement 20 feet in width. However, at thia 

particular point, lor a distance ol' about 500 feet in front of 

plaintiff's farm tne higiiway was left open snd unpaved for tiie 

reason that the soil constituted a awamp or bog, which settled dowa 

in such a way that tne concrete surface could not safely fce put 

upon it as the pavenient was constructed* Dynamite v/as used to 

blew out the soft, swauipy soil axid clay and sosae crualxed etone was 

uaed to i'ill the road in, Plaintiff knew of the aiariner of con- 

atmction of thia piece of road because he worked on the job while 

the highway was in proceae of construction. 

On the morning in question Edward Kelson, an agent and 

eiaployee of the defendant, at atout nine o'clock, ^as driving a 

truck of defendant north on this nighway; he had as a helper Gus 

Melsonjyan employee of defendant. The truck waa about 15 feet 

long with a cab in the front of it. At the rear of the truck ^^as 
attached a trailer about 24 feet long and 6 feet vide. Xhe truck 
Itaslf had no oompartment suitable for carrying merchandise and 
did not carry any. However, merchandise waa carried in the trailer 
which was attached to the truck by a sort of fifth wheel. The 
"bottom of the trailer was about 2^ feet from the ground; its top 
waa about 8 or 10 feet from the ground, and it carried merchandise 
to an amount which gave it a weight of about 9 or 10 tone. When 
the truck and trailer eaoie to the «id of the concrete pavement the 
driver proceeded to cross tnia 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 atte? pt to extriwate the truck 
and the trailer running them backward and forward; he was unable 
to move the vehicles; farmera in the neighborhood caiae to his 
aasiatanoa; the farmera helped by pushing, but thia did not 
result in iiioving the vel^iiclea. Among these farmera was the plain- 
tiff; icelson asked niia if he had a tractor ar^d he replied in the 


•)JS&10JtIC..- /^A5W i3 iiOJJ.'i LlX 

$i£ii''.' -£.j.j..:u's i tojio-x ro &i:>»i^i^. aiii,}. 'to aoijQSJtia 

» •■' '^-■'" ... ^,> t^--- ■:■.:. \;j&mAp,i^ f.'x'-ii ao dtlQa i'flMBl>^«l9J6» 'i© :ij$Sc'ii 

::iy:. .^ . .: f>nsi •:;■:. ^. -■ ■ fc9£t»i;Jc|-a 

■JO 'i iuaci,- ''■"i^' ii4S o^ 

^oa 616 eiAH ^^''' ti-j"-f^-'<J "^"^ ft»gi©xi «T9ici«'t aisf4^ ;»prw*8l8»« 
«ai.i ocw Bi0.uT:*ifl 9«»«1 3*ao*4. .«»Xai:' ''"^ '^ ' slivom ni dXi««i 

at'l'lrmative; jUelson tixen hired iiim to 'bring his tractor ancl assist 
In extricating the truois. and trailer, Plaintil'f ^^ot hie tractor 
and 'brought it to tiie scene oT the accident. It T?as a li'orcisoB; 
the front .Theela were 2|- feet hig:., the r«ar wheels 4 feet hiivji 
and equipped with lugs; the driver sat on a Beat betreen the rear 
wheels, b(»t,ireen 6 :and 10 inches forward from the back of the 
li&eels. Plaintiff Turought tiie tractor with two cnaine, each about 
7 feet long, one somewhat heavier than the other. Plaintiff drove 
his tractor to the front of the truck arid by meairis of tli©« 
the rear end of the tractor was attached to the front e:^d of the 
truck; the power of the tractor rs -f'ell as of the truck was ap- 
plied in an attempt to move the rehlelee forward; the luge on 
plaintiff's tractor wheela spun a little, dug up eoaie dirt, and 
then held sufficiently to stall the tractor's r-nt^ine; after several 
UBavaillug atteii.pts to pull the vehicles forward it v^as deoided to 
try to pull them out from the rear, and iselson, who had attached 
the chains at the front, unfast ned them; plaintiff drove the 
tractor to the back end of the trailer; l«elson carried at leaet 
one of the chains; plaintiff backed nx> hi 3 tractor to the south 
end of the trailer; Edward JSeleon took the small chain, crawled 
imder the baeX- end of the trailer, took the heavy chain and fastexied 
it, eonnecting the rear axle of the trailer *tth the draw bar of 
the traetor; there was ?ibout 4 or 5 feet between the rear exiA of 
the tractor an i the rear of the trailer; Edward kelson then went 
around tiie west side of his trailer and in a minute or eo got into 
the cab of the truck; plaintiff then began to pull, putting the 
tractor in low gear, pulling backwards tovrard the south; when the 
trailer was - oved a little more thaa 3 feet, suddenly aiid without 
any warning, the trailer moved backward and up onto the traetor, 
jaauuing plaintiff at;ain8t the steering wheel of the tractor. Plr^in- 
tiff says, "Tixe steering wheel broke to oieces and nad me pinned 

jM aislicr ei'mM k9xitl nsxf* n^nX***! ;»Ti*4Sfiri-J;'t*ij9 

vco^^Mt^ B.: i.ttaUtM£%- ,'t»£la*s& hms i>oir .aiSet>lT!iX» at 

;hob.-. .row-feioo- ?><.i90s s>i;i j-itiwo^d" feita 

\ul dtiif **)cr«fiwpp btm 
♦VOT" . t i&i'p^»ii t«!iivr9»toa aao ,3110! ^991' V 

uac ,5Ti.- -a-iioi! oij 3/jj) ^9imi s avqs ai«3i-iw iodro«T* a* "ttllaliiXq 
X^isTsa -r •■ ; -"' '-' -?fli* Off* XXeiTs d^jf ^Un-Hlantif* tUd a»M 

9d$ 9V01& 'ftitnieXg ;«»fi* b^a- Jata'featf ,tjn->^t 9.ri3 ts siiteiio Sii* 
tan^jl ■^• Mii't^o rtojJ.rntl ;T«?fls»* 9«# 'U ftns iiv; o^ totpsti 

■lb scJ- ricJiar isXifitJ^ 9il* to sX-. 'i{;J sai#o«flaoa ,ti 

tmvt msii iioaX«>vl Mewfci j'teXl*!'!:' ;■« it©d'3*'x3- s-ct* 

aias ■ a^janirar » rtl ftrue t»lt^t^ Bid tv. '^^ • &iiiJ--'t« 

driJ flSiiw ;xi;?Uo ■s'-oj alrtJ6wXo*d ^niXXwq ,'X;«»s woX tii toiQAit 


against the steering wheel post across my abdomen." He says he 
had no waorning; that "when the trailer pinned me the^ rear ol' the 
trailer was right up on ahout the center ol* the top of the driving 
wheels ol' the tractor. Then somebody hollered to pull ahead. The 
trailer pulled ahead probably two or three inehea, enougn to let me 
out, and I got out between the rii^it wheel ol' the tractor and the 

Mercer, a neighbor of plaintiff, says that after plaintiff 
waa caught he (Mercer) jumped on the running board said motioned 
Edward llelBon, who was then in the cab, to move forward. There is 
evidence tending to show that at the rear end of the trailer the 
fill on the road was about level, 

!Ehe facts are practically undisputed with the exception that 
defendant gave evidence tending to show that the clutch on its en- 
gine wao 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 is settled against the contention of defendant by 
the verdict of the jury. 

There reiaains for consideration the question of whether, 
conceding that defendant's engine contributed a nart of tlie 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 neg- 
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 guilty of negligence which 
brought about the injury to plaintiff, ^e do not doubt the driver 
of the truck apolied the power. It was not neces.sary 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 

.Afevftl *tf©<f« a*v bitsft-s 9Ai no Hit 

a«* 'i-.-j.v *...,> viiit «so ieacf «"»ix*i# •£[# l>«ii»uet do tn'w ««»««? ®ri^ *««!* 
■(j.«f ;^-(;f.*fMT.»'ls»'- 't<i .si>i-.-*rvn;i-ftoy -srl.i ;taffi.«<:-**^ _S«Xd-*9S si fen* iaiof alM.i 

nolrfw »0it9i'iJtX8«»fli 'to x.^£tt^& BJjrf^ B<«^ fe«« X** *«»»ilg»n * cii btil£<5Qe 
■isviifc ©c.» ifcfttot ion ci 9«^ /t'tx;rHl«XQ oJ v'xsjlat sslS *«o<f« *48«ien«f 

physical facts were *uch that the Jury could infer that he rt^-rrersed 
and aoplied tne power, I'he real question is, Wae tais .loplication 
of the power legal negligence caueiiiji the injury? It will ae ra- 
membsred txiat before tiie tractor v'as broufe,ht ail tiie po'^er of de- 
fendant 's engine had been applied in atteiupts to move tne truck 
and trailer forward, and afterward to move it bacJtward, in tooth 
cases without avail, 'hen the tractor arrived it wae connected 
with the truck, and tiie power of both applied in an endeav^or to 
pull the truck iHd trailer out in a forr.'ard direction, also 'v^itnout 
avail. It TJi\e then decided to atteaipt to atove the truce and trail»r 
in a bri,ol£ward direction. Under the Gircocistancee there ^as no way 
in which the driver could make an exact computation as to the amount 
of power it ■^•ould be necessary to apply. Ail tnr power of the truck 
and tractor had been found insufficient to i.ove the veiiicles in a 
forward direction. The driver, in so far as tiie evidence disciosee, 
had every reason to tuinK tuat all the power oi' both would be needed 
to move the seuae load from the rear, although the evidence shows 
that the road was somewhat better filled toward the rear of the 
vehiclftB than at the front, Thu power oi uoth trucj^ aixd tractor was, 
as it turned out, iuore tiian sufficient to H'Ove tne vehicles back- 
ward, but the driver had no better iueans of kxiowing tuis than had 
the plaintiff, Tli© truck and trailer were stuck, The sunount of 
po7?er necessary to extricate them could /.ot be definitjily deter ined 
by anybody. 4.e a matter of fact., it took ..he power of two highr-ay 
trucks to pull the vehicles out backward after the accident. We 
hold that the facts tend to enow an unfortunate accident vatiiout 
legal negligence on the part of anybody, 

Plaintiff has cited a Xiumber of cases where it is claiiiied 
that under cireuuiatarices soraewhat aiiBilar defendants w«re held 
liable. All are, we think, dietinfeuiehable. In KoeinsAt v. 

Koslnski . 118 Gonii, 7oi 172 Ati q-->a ^^ , .. 

* . 'uj., A^<; Atl. 9c4, io appeared that the pia.Latiff 

t^h-.:: ,; .- j: .-,.: .(.'.1 

i5«^^ o« s*'^ &t?iait aaaois^'eioi^snci© sxB tilt--. 
;fliiJoiMa 9tiS cJ a^ floijBjriiqiitoo J-o«x«) iir; 

,a®soi©8il!' &diis«i*iv ■■ < ■ • ■ '"'■^'^ 

«:■■ • ';o 'tj.'^^'i arft fe^j&w«.. :>i-xA.xi isiitfttf »*ii«iao8 " •«w iunen ft^cli ^*il# 

'to J-atfo^e •*t* .JioiiJb '5'xdw nsli^'i* fejaii i^ainj . t'tlioiaXq »xi:;f 

*0Oi{*l'* ttmblooe ^iiutuMc '"»* ■*• ^** 

fiaJHJtfsfo ai ti ^Wxft? aaaiiu 'to "xadt-'- 

^. . ^. h**^i»m .i;*A SVx .X^^T .i^ioO &.i .iiftaala^ 

unaided had pushed defendant's automobile out of the garage. De- 
fendant suddenly rerersed the power, v'ithout notice, caupicg the 
ear to iaove "backward, injuring plaintiff, Befendsuit vas neld li- 
able. In Blajcev'-ore v. Stevens . 103 Ark. 755, 67 a. W. (2d) 733, 
the automotile of defendant was stalled ii- a soft, muddy olace, 
and pl&intiff'a irj :., estate vuti?. the assistance of others and with 
the use of the po^er oi the oar v;ere cooperating in extricating 
It, when defendant, without %7arninfc, cut the steering wheel to 
the left, changing the course of the car and thus bringing about 
the injury of plaintiff 'e intestate. The jude^ent for plaintiff 
was affiriaed. In Salib a v . Saliba . 178 Ark, 250, 11 £, W, (2d) 
774, dofendaiit's autOi^obile was stuc< ixi a ditch. Plaintiff and 
ethert, upon invitation, «ot beuini the car in an atteapt to push 
it out; the car was moved to the top of the ditch, then suddenly 
lurched and moved backward. Plaintiff put ais hands against the 
glass of the back window to :iold it auad his wrists were cut. The 
neglii^ence alleged and proved was that defendant suddenly reversed 
»Dd applied the power to the csir, oaasUig it to move backward. 

In the instant case the veiiicles aioved in the direction 
that both ol'dintiff rjQd defendant expected tney would b'> xaoved and 
Intended and planned to move them, i'here was a willful and wanton 
count which was properly withdrawn, because tiiere was no evidence 
whatsoever tending to sup:3ort it. '.Ve hold taere was no legal neg- 
ligence dicclosed by this record, koreover, if we could find neg- 
ligence ii. it, it would be negligence in whioix both piaintiff taid 
defendant participated. The occurrei.ce was most unfortunate, but 

negligence within tiie meaiiinj; of ttie law does not appear. We iiold 
as a matter of law there was no evidencv? frcBi which the jury could 
reasonably return a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant's request for 
an instruction in its favor should have been granted. The Judgment of 
the trial court is tljereJ'ore reversed. 


O'Connor and McSurely, JJ, , concur. 

^iii r.i-j^^ • ,»3i;^on d'a^irisiw j-jtawo^ 9x1* l)»e's*r»T ^Iwefcfeji/s J-mifea^t 
,«eT (*s) .»? .i va t^-siv ..a^a sex . sgy y a ^ & , ., ♦.!:., »T^.M»it.M "* .»irf« 

,»*«I<i vftftjra'. ,*'tc« ■« '^i fcflX-tfe*a a«w >rruifcii«t«fc 'ta «iJi:roiw»d!«« *ri# 

9i ist'iJw vjH'i*i®»^e siiJ tut) ,3niit»«w iuoUil , ^r^ftuetaJb iisrivr ,il 
*0arf« gaiijialatf awrii baw tae aiia "to os-iwco ^.lia ^iaigiMud;. '.di 

'(CXci*frfeiws K«>J'-'' ,x-Ia#i6 »iijJ- 'r<. so* ®£I4' oj bsTOBi «*-,v -jusrt 9j;i:J ;i-uo tl 

hs8iev*T t-t«®ftfciw ;»n*i)«s'l6i^ imH *»af ijevviq i:i"s* ii»»sXX*'. •oa«i4tI»»« 

'jfciit 6»v©ia «:.» ItXtfo?' njttfi^ XieJos><;X« rfjiet.u»'td.f ime 'Iti^flijeXa ddo-. j^v.-,.- 

-ijsa uto^«X on suv »'i-:)a;^ hloti »« .*X #iOQqi/8 oi snX|iit£>.. isv^oe^ailw 

-S»»i iiul^ iiXJioy -. ,'X«vc.ftloJi .Ij-xoo*-! aiilj yd fcoeoIOBl?) ftoflr^alX 

6«tt :ni3-aX»X<i if^ou ifelHw ttX »oa«»aXXji*«- <Wf fci*f£>w .1 ,;JJt .li oo«»si-t 

Moil »W ,1*r-»aft« ^o-'X «S»»fo. «»(.X A^ 'to 3iaXni»9i2i Sfitf ttiiidflV 90fS9'^,)iX:&»0 

^Xuoo yii/t 1 - • -•^ oa ajs^ :."3:siU wbX "Jo i^iitm • «« 

.... ..;.':; i - -lO/UtoO' 



ApjellJxnts, ) 


▼•• ) 


JDI-Ov A, nOLA^IRD et al. , ) ^ 

Appellees, ) _^-«.ii ^ o.'M 

290I.A. 59" 


The plaintiJ"l'«, owners ol" certain first mortgage bond* of 
the Miehlgan-Ctiestnut isuixding Corporation, on August 16, 1935, 
brought suit in the Municipal court of Chicago, against the de- 
fendants upon a written guaranty executed on isiovember 15, 19 27, 
Their amended etatement 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 
leasehold to secure the payment of the bonds togetiier with in- 
terest coupons attaolied thereto. Xixs provision of the bonds axid 
the trust deed was that in case of default tae trustee laigrit 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 severally guarante^e<3l^_iil.e,^XiayaaJRJL^„^^^^ the 
bonds and. coupons as if the guaranty had been made upon eaoh of 
said bonds and coupons; that defendants agreed that they mi^jht be 
,1oined in any action against the Michigan Chestnut Building Corpora- 
tion, and recovery might be had atiainst 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; tnat in event of fore- 
Qlosure of the deed of trust said of deficiency they guaranteed to 
pay forthwith the deficiency; that in case ttreenebaum 3ons Invest- 


'imu,ja -lA^.i. ; - -wiri .lA?; 

vec .A.I 62 

'to aJ&»«cf »S8B*io*R *K<«i'i oi**«»« to B^eavo ,«'tT:iirrJtfii 

.rsti, ,ai" "XRofiiifftvaii ho bs&t..ti9x» "^j^i-ujuaats f»d*i«w « ctoijw »#nj»jfea«1' 

bH« efeaod^ sxiJ- 'lo ftol^ivo^q s<iT <Oi*^eu«fi* feexifijfetJ^e aaeciuoo tfaeidJ 

•10 dejis a(»«s« 9ft*ii. Ti^njaTMiBj- ^.hnnff 

-«i0CTi»O aalbXiiiU *««*B9iiO aa^jidotsi 8iii d-eni^jjM noi*6« ifxie «i l>»Blot 

•V0nx fcXjuoiia «il'i©af *^ 

mant company should, as it was authorized to do, purcbaae an,> A»- 
faul^ed Toonds or oouponB and subordinate the same to outstaniing 
bonds and coupons, said action should not release tue majiers ol' 
the guaranty; taat the agreeai«nt siiould bind the successors and 
assigns of the respective parties, and all ol the benefits of 
the FigreeiLsnt and tne ri^^nt to enforce the provisions thereoi' 
against the parties oi the first part should inure to the trustee, 
and to each and every holder of the bonds or coupons; tnat the 
executed original of the agreement aiiould be deposited with the 
©reenebauxtt Sons Investment Goiupany for the use and benefit of all 
of said parties. The instruBent was under seal. 

Defendants answered, denying liability upon tiie guaranty, 
upon tlae ground that under a condition subsequent they were re- 
leased from liability. By paragraph 6 of their answer they asserted 
that the suit could not be maintained because there wae another and 
prior action pending between the sarae parties for the same cause, 
*in that on Harch 31, 19 34, Central Republic Trust Company, as 
saeee3E>or trustee under the trust deed securint, the bonds of the 
plaintiffs by virtue of the power* i^ranted to it by the trust deed 
and the guaranty herein sued upon, brougut ari action in the Circuit 
court of Oook county, case .vo, 34 C 4253, and caused to be issued 
out of that court and delivered 'io the oheriff of CooJi county, Illi- 
nois, on or about inarch :U, 19 54, a auimons requiring eacii of the 
defendar.ts herein named as defendarits to appear and defend against 
the complaint filod by the said Central aepubiic irust Coiupiiny, as 
SucoesEor Trustee, which said coaplaint sought to feViforce, on behalf 
Of all the bondtioldere, including plaintiffs herein, the c^uaranty 
herein eued upon, as will more fully appear froux im exatiii^ation of 
the records and proceedings on lile in said cause in said court; 
that by virtue of the provisions oi the said trust deed and the 
guaranty herein sued upon, said Central Republic Trust Company, 

'losi^nj arioxaxvcyxq s/ii doio'iias oi tiii^li tnii bam ^Ofijue^ijpj 9dt 

. .1^ 'Xii4d^«»0"4h»v; siftxid 9«(V£0dd l>siit£;)'al«uc 94 ion bLtiott Sim 9iit tsMA 
•li* 'io •i»aoc( a.. --.osy Jbsei' J-stii.. 'txii esJaifrcT to'-g^dom 

b^. , • ^° 

©xi^ . < ' "" 

•li*. i»£U5 J>«»Jci iBU-itf iiijsw -i~. iu aiioiaive-Ja "' * z'i ^^^^ 

Successor Trustee in said suit, is acting on benall' oi" the plain- 
tiffs laereia auiiong otaera; tuat service oi saaixaone was had in 
said prior action upon ta& defendant, Jerocie ^. jiowes, Jr., on 
tne 14t>-i day of Aprii. , 1934, mid tnat said suit is still pending 
and undisposed of," 

Pursuant to the practiee of the Municipal court ae pro- 
vided in Rules 159 tmd 160 of that court, the defendant filed a 
laotion asking the trial court to deteiu.ine the merits of the 
atiatement pleaded in advance of the trial. Their liotion was sup- 
ported \>y &n affidavit setting up the xuaterial facts, and plain- 
tiffs filed a counter affidavit which disclosed that no issue of 
fact was presented. The plaintiffs' suit in the iiunioipal court 
was begun August 16, 19 35, It appeared the suit of the Succesisor- 
Irustee in te^ialf of plaintiffs was filed March 31, 1934. ijiovejuber 
9, 1936, the Itunieipal court, upon consideration of facts disclosed 
by these affidavits, found the filing of the suit hy the Sucoessor- 
IruEtee on 2arch 31, 19S4, being case Lo, 34 4253 in the Circuit 
court of Cooii. courity, tne isauxng of auiuiiions to the bheriff, the 
service of suiiuuons on one of tiie defendants that the suit in the 
Circuit court was still pending aiid had liot been disjosed of, and 
that the action tnu3 brought by the Sucoesftor-Truetee was "another 
action pending between the parties to this cause involving the fiame 
claiw and subject mutter as 'chat involved in t.iis cause, and tliat 
by retsoxi of the pendency of said action this cause cannot be 
maintained," and ordered that the suit of plaintiffs be dismissed* 
ProBi that order the plaintiffs have prosecuted Uiie appeal. 

The issues arising on "ohiL; record ctre similaj- to those con- 
sidered in Goldiuan et ai. v. holabird ot ai-. Gerierai number 39203, 
in wj.ich hui opinion was filed o^iarch 15, 1937, Ihe plaintiffs there, 
as h^^re, were owners of certain bonds of the ii»ichigan Cnestnut 
Building Cor,>oration of wnich defendants were guara^.tors. The de- 

. • saoii'^iUB lo ♦fiivx®e vS/.i' jeisxido ^"ofij^ ai»T»x4 s'i'tij 

■ aoc;etbtw baa 

A jbwii't Jajrifoa< '*«!► arf^ ,*«t**oo JariJ- 'to OdX boa yex 8*»It;K ax fcaftir 

-q>^'8 saw aoi^oia tie , L i* sxi* 'to ssftav^a al j;{^JbsdX<r iOBim^f^da 

-"su^lq bsis. ^(i:io&t i«i%«?^«i». »iU qis :^citiri&s ii.y&bt"i'ts an \riS hBitoq 
'to 9uii&i 0U jauj &6aoX&slb rioliiw ;f±VdH&i'Jt'tiB ic«7rii 

T9^ai»V'0iit^ »ii^ 'to iian ani bstao-q^cse il .€S^X «3X ^ai^auA aj^ed asw 

•A:}j.>9\'C>*i ,i^f. - I '■: a-XtfJi bBll't sjsw a't'tljnislq 'to 'tXejis'i fli ^adajJiT 

fc&8«)i» Silo. A5-.BX»Joie«o.» naqu ^$xu&& lAqisiasjii »M ,aF.§X «^ 

■•'c-9«»e3Mtt ©jw ,,•.. .,-....3 ©iicj- to ;gjuili't sxj^ .fcoujo'l ,siltMkt'i't£ assi^i xcf 

.iijoiio «i* al Sd!-;?. .; i---. ...■•- *a«s aiii«d ,*':ci ,11; ii6^«M no »«i-3«iT 

t'^.ao^.^i:,"? n:nsid itou fti>rf ^l■u« snit.Ti*^ xXl;fa a&w iTti^oo iluaii-d 

,Ht3xi*; a^^J:-tfai»Xq 90% .T««-E »^X xia«.«;ii iuixi saw aclai.qB »«» lioiiiw cti 
iuni99!iJ assXiiaM «xi» lo afexjoii aXtsi-x&o 'io a«»j,two ««»* ,«i9ri hb 

fenee of the prior aotion .:^cndinfi, in the Circijit court was tlaere 
interrjOBCd lay a paragraph of' answer, rrhich upon niotion 
of plaintiffs was stricicen. We held (citing Leonard v ,. Sye . 361 
111. 185, and 3chns ider v. Smith . 271 111, App. 414) that the court 
erred in striking this paragraph of the answer, and reversed and 
remanded the cause for that reason. The facts which were ifiade to 
appear "by the affid.a-?it8 in eupvort of and in opvosition to the 
motion of defendants in the Municipal court ara suh at initially the 
same as triose eat up in the Qirouit curt in the paragraph of de- 
fendanti' ansver which we held the court erxed iu etriitiiig. The 
v\ (decision in that case is, therefore, oontrolling upon this aprieal. 

It is contended hy the Dlaintiffs iiere as it was cGnte;oded 
hy the -.laintiffs there, that to oermit the intsroos Ition of this 
defense deprived plaintiffs of their right to conoarrent or cumu- 
lative remedies, and Sriks gn v. Ward, 256 111. 259; Hohr er v, 
De.ftther ag e . 335 111. 450; Wol Jeenstein v. Slo nia . 355 111. 306, 
were there, as hare, reliad upon. Ihe opinion, however, pointed 
out that these cases do not involve any question of abate/nent aiiA 
hnve no a-ooli cation upon this appagl* 

It -TT-ns urged there, as h(>.x^ , the deed did not 
author isse the trustee to hrict^ any suit to enforce the guaranty, 
and that the action comusnced hy hiia was therefore not binding on 
the hondboldf-rB rmi therefore could not be pleaded in al-Htenient of 
a suit by the hondholdere on the £^u'j,raj.ty. We held and now hold, 
hoT^evf^r, that thr authority to bring such action was conferred upon 
the trustee by thp- terins of the written guaranty irres^^ective cf 
any cf the provisions of the trust deed. The plaintiffs here, 
however, make tbe further ccntertlon that the provision in the 
guaranty purporting to vest the right to Hue thereon in the 
trustee iaineffeetual, and cite autaorities which it is claimed 

'luc'O i 1 - ' ' ^p,-4cji 

no - 

ClOOU ; 

.':t i-u .•oii:iivo-;. 

hold that only the legal holder ajad owner oi' the "bonds may bring 

suit thereon. Pitkin -y, Jantury Oil Co. . 16 F. (2d) 2?., -vr.^ a 

number of cases from other jurisdictions arc cited to this point, 

I" I.lli-tiois r-Sur ety Co. y» Munro . 289 111. 570, our Supreme court 


"A ^oiarHJritor may impose any ter-::.s or conditions in his 
guaranty "vhic'-i he may choose and v.'ill only be liable to the 
holder accorrlinn- to the terras oi' the agreraiient.* 

In Corpus Juris, vol, 21 i , p, 279, the lavr is aiat-sd to 

he that: 

"The cl?ferer has a ri^^t to prescrite in his offer any 
oonrlitions as to tima, place, quantity, Biode of aooeptuiice, or c 
other TT-atters which it Kay please hii:- to insert in, an^. maJte a 
part thereof." 

Other cases announcin;v. the sao^e rule are iburtce v. Burke. 
859 111. 262; Martin y,. Bparrow. 253 ill. App, 488; iuid hopre v. 
Hahn. 274 111, App. 125. in the opinion in the Gold^aan case we 
poirited out that under eection 44 of the Civil Practice act the 
joinder of legal and equitable actions (as in the Circuit court 
suit) was pariuisBitle, jjii the >:ri«f for plaintiffs ii. the present aeeras to concede that tliis is true. They contend, hoTrerer, 
that the complaint by the 3ucces3or Trustee in the Circuit court 
did not effectively Join the two o luses of action hecauae of the 
provision of section 33 (2) of the Civil Prictice act, vhicli pro- 
vides that sppfirate oau?<es of action siaall be stated in separate 
counts, >u-ii hy reason of Rule 11 of the iiupreme court ^''aich in 
substance provides that '<fnexi legal and equitable actions are 
Joined they may be pleaded in distinct counts raarked "separate 
action at law" and "sapara-ce action in chancery. « ihe action at 
law on the guaranty agreeuient and the loreolosure action in the 
Circuit court are not so pleaded in separate counts nor are they 
•0 marked. Plaintiffs therefore contend tua^ tne actions are not 
effeotivft, and that the entire proceeding s^.ould be considered a« 

.,•:'.:.. v~"' i^.i-'i-n-u ..,■1.1./ lu 'ji -^AtWC feiTMl a;? -.i-fc"/ Xr., ,:i i 'Jild VJ.'1'.J .l#i;..< .'^iO/l 

it'iiioo ■3-;i>Tic,r..'S llfo jOTa .XXI ess , s-tralv: ,v .o" vt^ixici axoaLfcJXjt rtl 

^ '•it)' 'r© a id 


,ai.i»X> ntfg^oO a': 

:tsi^^ 9<f 

«5w 'I*!? .BO acr=^,.i. - 

■s .iyg?%J9gfci .y alcr-rj?^ ;?5S .ixl was 

»et@i^Q^A 9X4'ji,tiujC)« ifl« X«:; 

j-jtsTswoA ,.^il&J■ilo^ Y;»xil' ,9iJt? 


/ J- ill ■ .1. O iJXi 

■13 no ««i 

an action to foreclose the mortgage. As already stated, the suit 
in the Circuit court was feegun March 31, 1934. Rule 11 in the 
particular rorm relied on lay plaintilTs was not adopted antil June 
8, 1935, The rule was, therefore, not applicable to that action 
even il" it is conceded that a question of compliance with forms of 
pleading could 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, wnich was in force when the 
trustee's suit was filed, directs tiiat separate causes of action 
shall be stated in separate counts, and that the Successor-Trustee's 
aotion brought in ths Circuit court 'id not comply with this direc- 
tion. The mere form of the pleading is not, we hold, laateriad. 
Plaintiffs finally contend that the suit in the Circuit 
court could not be pleaded in abntexaent of their action because it 
has not been diligently prosecuted. It is true that the suaunons 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 
proesedings in the United States District Court under section 77B 
of the Bankruptcy act, and that that court issued an order restrain- 
ing actions against the Building corporation or its property. 
Service upon the defendants is not necessary to the validity of a 
defense of prior suit pending, as will appear from an exaiuination 
of section 43 of the Civil Practice act and Municipal court rule 
159, The order of the United States District court does not pur- 
port to restrain any action against defendants on their guar^r.ty 
agreement, and the decisions of the federal courts are to the 
effect that such an order if made would not have been effective. 
In He iNine I^orth Chu rch Street. Inc .. 82 Fed. ( Sd) 186; In_Re 
Diverse y Buildin g Corporation 86 Fed. {2d) 456. In the Goldman 
case we said: 

aotioB iASi3r oi 9l(iiiotI(ic^ iom , ^7. o'i <•>♦:: c?ii ,a«w »XiJU ©rfl ,usei ,8 
'to acfio't xi*iw soiisxlqaioo lo noiJes xd^ fcefesoHoo si *Jt tl obto 

aoiJOAs , IX '«. .j».^tn»c[«»fcni dr«r.; ..jaXT«39qqjB encarf 

»JEl>i . : I (J-oe 9v^ iiajst^i livIO •!«: 'to (S ) E€ 

a'9»;)^aju7'£*%03a»30£Fci 01U iMMf ban «8.t£Ui09 ttisxtia^tk at frs^^^^ts scf XX«xia 

-091 -t iiiiX/oTtd noid-©a 

*i«11t«#«i> ^ jai&jB9Xq 9rtJ- 'to an -idT ,aox* 

.. XjBai't «'nUnl»i1 

[tfoa tvaoit 

ja»aiXib os«flf *©n SAxi 

■\a&ii&ti ofeX*. b'svi** c)^on 8«v.' 9a«o ax fit 

Yt«*awXoT - H Sittsosd tioJ^djBioq'Jov) ial&iii/S *ua;r89dO n«airIolM 

- . 3i*ai»'X lefeio ;i« beuaei #1000 iiirii --r.^-^ '.i^ ,#o« x»*^J""t^n«3 aili- 'to 
♦^l^ia^otei nil 10 noAJfiuog^eo BHlJbXiua ©ri* tBcd»g& saolioB ^al 

:, '(;,". ^-- + ^^ f i;r!v «iit aj- ^j^x/iass-s-'i .I't^i^ si ua .■.b'i. it^l- s.-^i ;xooif ^oinsS 

.-. - •■\,.. -'■ Si' aoi*09B *to 

c«T«>b©t mis ic ■ ^o»t8« 

,»Tii09't'tS HS' ''* •&««i 'U ■ a i'AJtf* *0«'rt9 

atfofc.! .aa^ (fcS) .fca'i 56 fioiJg':co(aoS afli!)Xl»a ^QBisylg 

"The purpose of the rule wuich prevents the iaainteniiaics of 
two suite upon the saaie cause of action is tiiat a dsfendajit may 
not lae rexed ty meny actioxiB, Xhat reason is certainly present 
in this case, Ihere is also the additional reason that equality 
may prevail as tetween the many holders ol these bonds Wiioee rit^iits 
under the terms of the guaranty are equal, i'roDi the equitable 
standpoint there seems to be many reasons why the successor 
trustee by a suit at law in behalf of all these bondnolders may 
protect and provide for the rights of all the parties with a 
great degree of certainty jmd 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 defenuants nas 
been served with process in the suit by the successor trustee. 
Before the adoption of the Civil Practice act a suit was periling 
for the puroose of a plea of a prior suit pending \iheu the summons 
was issued and placed in trie haiids of the sheriff. Pollack v, 
Kinman . 176 111, App, 361, By the terms of the Civil Practice 
aet, sec, 5, a civil action is begun when su,.juons is issued. In 
the successor trustee's suit the sa.uiiion8 was duly issued and de- 
livered to the sheriff for service ai'id one of txxe defendants was 
actually served. Service of suiauons was not, however, essential 
to the validity of the plea. Taylor v. 3outnern Hy. Co, . 6 1. 
Supp. 259." 

As stated in the beginning the issues nfton this appeal were 

practically decided in the lioldman case. i<'cr tne reasons stated 

in that opinion, as also for the reasons nerein stated, the 

judgment of the trial court is al'firmed* 


O'Connor and McSurely, J J, , ooncur. 

e;Ji!%,J:'i sno--..' 2ir..K'! sa'ii'j lo i is** XifiV^tCf i£JBin 

»jjit ;^/ . , , ijto»JL liii isailiot* 

t.5:/i es' '-C JiiiC rjatay .J »ii'*:? s>.-J ^oa S1« «*i4-^«q 

* soid-Oijal liviO sxi;? 'to aoi;Jqol>fi »nt sio'lea 

.;,: .• ilus lolxq, & 'to «»Xq A to ®aopiiJ«[ siid" to't 

,1 .•.L^:-..« 9iU to afeiTusfi 9ui at bQtmlq ba& b9usai asw 

' 'ilrlO 9itt IQ «;aT©i siiii x^ •'t*£ •ftQ'-A' '-^^^ ^''^ ^ «S*f3SM 

fji , -^ u.-r,... ... ^. ,. ajjj^si b1 £toJ;*Qri Xivlo i;- . ■'' .■'■'!"< , i'o* 

S«v,- .,,,„...,-.., -. . , :- 6i)iT198 10 i 'fl il>3AiB R ■ •iiSVil 

".f^SS .qq«a 

■i .5fie *f oai'foO' 



ex rel. JOICj S. RUSCH, ) 

Pe1;itioner, ) 


VIOL^ VvoJCIIi and kiilHClDiiiS TUl'TLE , ) 
Respondente. ) 


OF COOK couiiry. 

290 T-A. 597 



D]SLi\rjai£;D the opunioi^ Oi' im court. 

This is an appeal "by respendenta from a judgi/ient of the 

County court of Cook county, finding that they were guilty of 

conteuipt. The proceedint. against them was brouj^ht undar aection 

13, chapter 46, of the Revised statutes (See 111, State Jiar 

Stats,, 1935, p. 1499.) The proceedincJ, was begun August 3, 1935, 

through tae filing of a petition by Rusoh, chief clerk of the 

Election board, which charged that respondents and Bonnie Horton 

and Joim H, Donaj,yserving and acting aa Judges and clerks of 

eleetion, "did fraudulently and unlawfully make a false canvasa 
and return of the votee oast in eaid precinct at said election; 
that said respondents, -wuile serving and acting aa judges and 
clerks oi' said election in said preoinct, were i^uilty of corrupt 
and fraudulent conduct and practice in the duty of said respond- 
ents as ju'^ea and clf^rks of said election," The petition 
averred that petitioner was advised and believed tha.t the miscon- 
duct and niisbehavior of respondents constituted a criminal offense 
or offenses against the People of the State of Illinois and also a 
eontewpt or contempts of the court. Leave was given to file the 
petition sxid it was ordered that respondeiots show cause why they 
should not be punished for such contempt. The order directed that 
they saould give bond in the penal sum of $2500, or in default 
thereof be coBiaitted to jail, or until they should give bail as 
required, and that a writ of attaclment issue to the sheriff. 

.itiiJU si\^iH. J^vfc'-i 



,^s^'£\n b ^ . jtf 

'i.0 ^Jj-ii/^ s-i-^s v;&JJ S<;,!i5 vnijE;u.i: i «\,-* 
fiax^oet ■ . , ;^.» -^ 

e;.'ii *to Jtif^Xi 'tsifto jXioai,l4ii TJSf aoiJio^tj^ *j lo j^oj-xii. sxiu jij^ioXiiit 

«8£!V-a^ ^ -- ;ii xHu'ln^iMii baa ifiiitrl; r-.u«-i*i bif," ,cxoiJo?Ift 

-feitoqe vJub axiJ lU ool^os'.r .hieXjjfcwjfii'i i:;cui 

Hoi:^i:d-so, axfi . .to aiti lo fcni/5 eSj^bi-f, a^-j 8;^a'j 

©ana 't'io Xfc.nijiiTo « b9fuii.iea.oo eia9biioq99% to loivaileialu ban ioub 

^ ) slgoa^ 9iii itsialB^f: Bnaasi't'io to 

9fi , ..;o£> Qfi^ 'to a*oa[»*nco to ia:.i0jaoo 

X9Ai ^liyr eauuo v,oae at.-'9baoq9^i iata baieSio ajs'" ii bcup. aoli iSec( 

iaiii bBiO'^tit t9bto , rqiaa^Jaoo ■-■•rfgiiiurQ I;.0i:v8 

jjljy .■ : , ;.>no;i «vx,, - ii^C 8 >j»i7;^ 

«« Xlaci evi^ £/X^o.iiJ t^x^-f ii^-.tJ 'xo .ix.^r oj h9iitm^oa -srf 'to^ieri;^ 

,rilt9ri8 9ri- oi ©iJeoi *a9faiio£iJ'« 'to iitw « J'fif^* ' "" , ''•t ".•.'*■.- 

Deee-iiber 13-, 1G35, the court on i;iotion of the attorneys for the 
petitioa'jr orderai the siaeriff to endorsa a retain on theiee writs 
of attachment. Respondents appeared specially jrid aade a iuotion 
to quash the •writs wliioh was deriied. ilie cause was iieard upon 
the rule to slior/ cause tlieretofore entered, t.-o -iYidejoe taken in 
open oourt, an'' t'ae luotion of attorney for tne election coiJ/iiiseion- 
ers that th.e rule to siio'?^ cause should be made absolute, and the 
counter motion of th« attorney for res ondents that they should 
be discoargad. The court found that it had Ju3Fi»diotioii of the 
subjeot matter and the parties; "i'hat a priiaary election was held 
in the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois, on 
the 10th fHay of April, 1934, for judges of tiie ^unicipai court 
of Chicago and for .-ill of thf> county, precinct or district, state 
and United State* officers whose election at tiiat time was pro- 
viiled by law; that at said election in the 48tli Precinct of the 
27th Ward in said City of Chicago, County of Uook and citate of 
Illinois, 3:iid respondents i-ercedea S, Tuttle and Viola K. Wojcik, 
respectively served as Ju "gee of election; and t.-iat saici judges, 
nsjsely, Mercedes 2, Tuttle and Viola K, Wojcik and each of them 
«ere by virtue of their offices officers of this County Court of 
Cook Cecnty in the State of Illinois, 

*That at snd during said election said Mercedee E.futtle 
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 Deiiiocratio candidates' ballots and 19 pri- 
mary Republican candidates' ballots voted ixa said precinct, at 
aforesaid -'leotion; 

"That at arid during said election said Mercedes U;. I'uttle 
and Viola R. Wojcik and each of thea willfully and knowingly 
signed, made, and delivered false returns of aforesaid 

?, ■i.<->L-lO %^CiQli:iiOC 

©tt,??^.-; , :T':5n.!:o9*tfT ,v^0./;r.: ;. . - 'o 

; i o 1 i .-i "> £ f) Ibq 91 ola 

vX.-nixn-.inr/ f>ffl2t ^{XXJJ'i: IXI^' xaOiU 'iO Xi»«9 6t«i at!::. ■ . ^l^Xf tlO* 

'■ ■ t ■ 


election, toowing the aame to tc false, naxiiely, wrongfully, unlaw- 
fully and kno-wingly counted the said 120 priwary Democratic candi- 
dates' ballots and tiie said 19 priuiary Ke:ublicsuQ candidates' 
■ballotB as erased and altered and reported as the official count 
of the ssdd .ballots the totalsarrived at by including in said 
tally smd count the said erased aiil altered ballots, -migh said, 
count was Known to sa i d respon de ntB to be f al se , 

"That the respondenti}, iiercedes jS, Tuttle and Viola R, 
Wojoilc, and eaoti of theu», by reason of the foregoing were uad are 

and eacii of them -vfas and is iiuilty oi misconduct axid aiBbehavior 

as ofiicers ol tiie Countj^of Cooit County, Illinois," 

fhe further i'iudin.^ was that respondents were present in 
court; that Uxey had failed to purfc,e theiuselYee of the coiiteaupt so 
found; that the rule against them was aiade absolute; that they 
should be adjudged guilty and comffdtted to the county jail of Cook 
county ibr a teriri of one year, "there to reraain charged with con- 
tesipt by reason of having \'^ ill 1 ally and frauduleiitly marked, 
altered, and changed and permitted others to mark, alter and 
change ballots voted in eaid precinct at afoxesaid election as 
heretofore found by the court," 

Eesponden'ts contend in the first place that a f^>tion mad* 
by them to quasn the writs of attacxmient should have been bub- 
tained as being in violation of Article 6 of tue Lili of Hignts 
and because the writs, altnough directed to the sheriff of Cook 
county, were in fact served by private investitiatorB specially 
employed for that purpose. Respondents point out that no return 
was made upon the warrants until some luonths after the issue taereof, 
when by order of the court the sheriff made a return under date of 
Decembei' 11, 19 35, Respondents say, citing autnorities, that a writ 
directed to one officer cannot be served by another, The ssme con- 
tention was made by a respondent under similar ciroujastances in 

•Xii AOfc.. lioMQ btiif. ^3LtQ\^0V 

Jail£fi5i.8 ; '?.iUo't 

,.....»..£ wi> wail >..*•. ., .-..J-.., . -..*iw -jniv.sii 'ta noajaoi •^jcf d-qvi;©^ 

-ats us-ycf "^Tv-rT ^Jiuorf.e #o«{nfioi:«*^fl It* &ittv 9iL:t r;8£uc ocf aerlJ- -N^rf 
■^ijLftioacia B^»*jBaJt*f3 ■ "' " , ;,tfU(oo 

Ruseb. V, lAat t nleaen . ho. 33551, 286 ill. App. ,615, We th&rc 


"There was no substantial error in overruling tae respon- 
dent i atiii.iecen ' s uxotiou to quash, ine Bervi'^e oi' the writ of at- 
tachment upon nim Ijecauee oi" his cciitentlon txiat it vras not served 
by the 3a>;rilT. hh a judtje of election he was a£i ol'iicer of the 
court aind since he appeared and preserited his del ens e he haa no 
grcuiafle i'or « int. "* 

The 8£u>^-e lule is Ujpplic&Lle here« 

It is contexided in tne next place that the proceedings 
against rearonrientB should have been diaii-issed because of laches 
in the prosecution of the same. The alleged contempt was coiasiitted 
at the primary election held April 10, 19 34, The petition against 
respondents was filed August 3, 19 35. I'here was tl-xerefore a delay 
of 16 mont?:s in the institution of tlie proceedings. The hearing 
of the evile/ice -was coamenced karan 23, 19 36, emd final Judguient 
in the orooeedintj ivas not; entered until kay 1, 1936, In support 
of this; contention respondents cite a nuiuber of cases where lachei 
has "been held to te a ^ood defense ia prooeedinga by way of cer- 
tiorari or Jianfla^ Cases cited -are Blake v. 1 itidbjuogi . S.?5 111, 
555; People v.. Burdette. 285 111. 43; -luds on v. Q- ^ens, 170 111, 
App. 333, aiid ii awgpn v ;. .ilawsp n. 55 ill. App, 5^5. Havs on v. i-: aw son 
is the only jase cited v/hioh concerns a jud^iment for oonteinpt, but 
the decieicn reversing, the judejaent in that case was not based on 
the ground o J" laches. Respondents; do not suggest that any positive 
Btatute of limitations bars this prosecution. The statutory liini- 
tation in cases of misdemeanor has been applied in caees of criminal 
eontempt, Beattie v. People^ 33 111, App. 551, But this proceeding 
has "been held not to be of the same nature as a criminal contempt, 
l^-SaifL-Lt-MiEMt 368 Hi. 336. We hold the prosecution here is 
net barred by laches, 

1»hile this is true, the period ol' time w .icn has elapsed 
since the acts compl&inedef has an important bearing on the con- 

8 9X1J- 


■ .0).U 




T- ■■ ■ J./ 



•' ■ -'t 




..... „j 

= ;...v. ,s:?I 


il *■• 

-iw ? r 


Sio^^qm' . -^s'i XtStm I'S^tei,. ■■■'.I 

.a^xioeX Tg^ JbstTP-*' -ton 

trolling question in uie case, whicii ia wiiether the judgment o^" the 
court is \jrj,sed upoii evidence so clear arid cori-vincint; in its nature 
as to justil'y the Tiiiding tixat respondents vrere ji,uilty ae ciiarged. 
Respondents argue that the judgment order does not eet I'orth facts 
constituting the olTense with aull'icient particularity arid certainty 
to 'dhow that the judgment order was justii'ied, and they cite authori- 
ties in cases I'or a direct contempt coBmiitted in the iaaaediate pres- 
ence ol' the ccurt whioa Uold that the order must contain a recital 
ol' all essential I'cxcts. This pri^oeeding, however, is diatutory and 
not one as at ooizunon law for a conte^-^pt coomi vted in t^ie iioiuediate 
presence oi" the court, ihis pri^ceeding is statutory and the evi- 
dence bearing upon the t^uilt axid itinocense oi respondents in pre- 
served ty a bill ol' exceptions. Similar orders in ein-ilar cases 
have been held to be sul'licient , and as petitioner points out, no 
Otjection -was in the trial court to the sufficiency of the 
Judgment order. P eople v. Greenseit . 277 111. App, 479; ir'e oole ex 
rel. V. dchTvarta; . 284 111. App, 38, 

As already stated, the controlling question in tiiis record 
as we view it, ie mThether the finding and jud^^ent of the ccurt is 
sustained by evidetics suf f iciexitly clear and couvincint. to justify 
the finding of te,uil'oy. While the proceeding is not for tin offense 
which is distinctly crijuinal in ita nature, sjnd it is not neces- 
sary to establish the guilt oi' respondents beyond all reasonable 
doubt, it nas been held that in such a case the petitioner is re- 
quired to produce "laost convincing evidence ol tne trutu of tne 
charge." . People e^ rel. v.. Eptwas . 275 111. App, 406, Tnis is 
more particularly true when a judgmeiit so severe ae tuis in entered. 
The effect oi' the jud^a^iient is to deprive respo^dexite of tneir lib- 
erty ruid humiliate theti to an extreme degree, aiid such punisu,..ent 
is not to be inflicted upon uncertain and doubtful evidence. 

The facts in this case would appear to be tuat a priaiai^ 

aloalTii . -; »oa©fciT» aoqw fc^siitf ai J"xjmgo 

v:-- - , : . . ^;!tjoo 

.jiQ 93-sifc«iifc-?ii ©ii* ai fcs^d-imaoo d''q;ia©4"«oo d-ooiib e T:o'i: asa*o fli: as>li 

lMii09-i <3 «i*^ltt># iaijffi tQb'io oiit 3asii bloii mti.^- 'nii 'to ©on® 

on . ''yad 

9ii4 ■ ..uiBOTq Q'^ b»xJtup 

ei . ... t5V& .ejjV7;f<> B: .V .fXa'i xe &Xcioa<3. . " .'^^t^do 

,■. -. I'iOflS 


election ^as held on April 10, 19 34, in Chicago, Cook county, 
Illinois, ■M^'i th.?t thp respondents acted as judges of election at 
puch prinvrry plectlon ps hr-ld, in the 4iith precinct of the 27tii 
ward of the city of Chicago. The clerks ol' election v;ere Bonnie 
Hortcn vm^ John H. Iiona, The jaig^B yfen iercecJes .";. Tuttle, 
Viols. ?. ^ojci^, ?nd ^'.tnlly Thoruson, All were charged and a rule 
entered ag^dnst theoE. Smily Thompson said John Dong ,iied pending 
the nroceedinge anc! their evidence was not avail^hle upon the 
trial. Bonnie Horton was tried tut found not a-^ilty upon suhetai^ 
tially th'> same evidence upon 'which the respondents were convicted. 
The trial Judge expressed the opinion that Bonnie tiorton could not 
h?' held hecsiuee fihe -'aa only a clerk and presumahly tsoause her 
duties as clerk differed I'ro^ the duties iraposed upon tiie other 
respondents "by the fact that they wgre judges. In suhstaiioe the 
petitioner ati ag-'inr^t restiondents relies upon the evidence of 
Howard A. Rounds, a handwriting expert, whose qu'ilif ioationa were 
admitted "by respondent 8, find whose ezperif-nce extends over 25 years. 
Rounds testified in subetar. ce tiiat he had examined the ballots at 
the rooiiR of the election commisaioners in the City Hall oxi October 
ir>, 1935; that he found 129 ballots on vrhich, in his opirdon, 
there was evidence of "short penciling" in f.tvor of 2 candidates 
on the DeiRoeratio ticket an:1 1 candidate en the Repubiioan ticket. 
Photostatic cobles of these ballots have been incorporated in the 
record for our iriaT)action. 'ilie markings upon the ballotsare not 
such as in our opinion would be obvious to one not an expert upon 
•xamination. The evidsnco of the expert is not, however, contra- 
dicted by other expert evidende. The evidence shows without oon- 
tradiotion that respondents wjire not 5';uilty of making these crosses 
upon the ballots, ooncaming which the expert testified. ISach of 
them, for the purpose of detemixiing this question, was asked to 


s»xuiio : ra ,a;^.'-. 

, . ae'TJiui^' '■>"". , ' / :■ ■:-'•■ 

' •^■l.,%Bii6 SUSW j.iii. ,acsrv;o/ ^ . j.oiv 

iifiicusLj ivfib sa^d ndail Jbxxs ao8giBoi{T n:,^^-;..-. ...v.-i-.j ,.',-.aT:<-yj- b«^»*r» 

^ofJ t^ii/ca n.otT:©H «laci0f; tax?! f^/'^fjt 

J ikoijijtt..' ■ , ■ 

J J. *« -1 0:^92 '^ 

iiiJ' s£i<tnJ^c^'' 

give a specimen of her writing "by maJcing marks in the foria of 
erosses and each of tlieiia did so, ITiey also positivaly denied 
tlaat they had made any aiarks upon the "ballots or had chaxiged them 
in any way. iSo e-ridence was produced at the hearing tending to 
show that any actual ch;inge or uhariges in the "ballots were made 
by them or either one of them. The record alee shows rJiat these 
women have excellent reputations in the coffimunity in waich they 
reside. The charge of the petition, therefore, to the effedlij 
that til ^y personally willfully axid 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 soineone other than these two 
altered and changed the ballots; that tiiis '"as done by permission 
of respondents or by their aoquiescenoe; that they were therefore 
guilty of misbehavior as officials in this and in counting the 
bsbllots thus altered and changed. There is no direct evidence of 
sueh iaiowledge or acquiescence ori the part of these respondents, 
but the petitioner says, '•How 'short penciling' could h&ve 
occurred must surel.). have come within the knowledge of the 
judt^es, sJ3d the court was correct in holding them reapc'^^ibie, * 
The facts in xiia record in our opinion do not Justify t^iis state- 
ment. Respondents gave evidence tending to show diligent atten- 
tion to their duties as Judges of election at the time in question. 
The unconttradicted evidence also saows that other persona were 
present, all of whom were charged \7ith ths same duty and all of 
whom hid the opportunity to sea any improper conduct with reference 
to the ballots. There were present Mrs, Thompson and Mr, Dona, 
both of whom are dead. There were also present, ai3 the evidence 
shows, watchers for the various parties in interest. The evidence 
also shows that watcliers for the Better C-ovemiaent Association 
were present, Kone of these possible witnesses were called to 

h^lsxdb ^i>vl::inao o&Ib 'i©xl'i; .08 bib srAd^ to tio<e« ba^ aaeooio 

*>A!^^?. s-x:-'* »5:-.;J :.; sjjofir^o I^i/^'os t-^3 f»iii WOiie 

.iKtri ftHBJ««a|>xuj sy sa ^a^ugXH ,isr»»oit ^"xeaoii iJsq 9XiT 

atolai^an* ©lew ^©rlj ;aoaao««ii«(p& -^d" to s^^aeJbnoqiSi to 

'to «oii« i ■ " i - ,i,a^*wiiis has bit^iLa aisdt 8*oIX««f 

'^niXiaiiieq ;^TOils' «li;* woii" ,&\iiH 7.- i\cxJl,Jaq sxU Jurf 
9:..j iQ s-^fcaXwoni: *il;f.^.^ffixy-Xw 9i-.c ■--:-: •■--:•■; ■' ■ ■••■.-.". 

'9t»is sl-'^ Y'^xd'BjJt ^o^*^ Ol> mlixiiiO 1U0 111 iitoiiSiT 9fii al utaeTi Sifl 
"Stasia tfna-alXifc wofie oi' j^ni^fjs;)^ ©ofL^Jbirs ©v«s aia»bctom»^ ,;tn«Bi 

, iojtJ'ss'ijp aX ©ciiJ sii^ ij;^ aei^o I- 'to essl.'ift ^^ $Blifsb ittiii p4 floX4' 

aoW«iooaeA ^asmnte* aS sriJ •3.0't atedsyian ttidi^ awoxls oaXs 

o;t bsLUiO 310W •••»»aJlw sXcfiasoq ©ssri* "to »nol4 .^nsasnq snaw 

evidence of aiiy improper conduct on the part oi these respondents. 
The efTidence also shows that during a part ol the time in^eatiga- 
tora for tne isoard ol' Election CoismissiocerB were present and were 
there at the request ol' Mrs. Tuttle; tAi.ey also were not called as 

The respondents testified and their testimony is reason- 
atly consistent and uncontradicted. It is to the el'ieot that they 
were present at the opening of the polls at six o'clock a. m, on 
the morning, of the prinary; that the ballots were opened about 
five minutes tefore six o'clock in the presence of watahers from 
the Election Coiamissionera' office; that the tallots were placed 
en a table where they reraained in view of the watchers and the 
poll officials; that the election was conducted in a proper and 
orderly mauiner; that at the beginning of the primary the ballot 
box, when opened, was ei;apty; that Mrs. Uiompson, one of the of- 
ficials, was suffering from an illness from which she nas since 
died; that Dona, one of the clerks, who has also died since the 
primaary, was decrepit ^ith impaired vision which rendered him xin- 
fit and unable to perfoirm his duties; that the voting throughout 
the day proceeded without any occurrence which would justify 
criticism of r«?spondent»; that the polling place closed at five 
o'clock p. m. ; that a recess was then taken that the officials 
mig-M eat, they having worked all day without eating; that i^rs. 
Tuttle had possession of the key to the ballot box, which was 
attached to a string about her neck; that she unlocked the ballot 
box in thje 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. Thompson and kiss Horton were eeatdd 
at one end of the table- Mr, Dona and respondents at the other s-nd; 
that the canvass proceeded until krs, Thompson collapsed and was 

iCfoTrerari ^n« 'to •onofciy* 

'to jjnln— • ■■')t»w 

-'to '"^'■''' '1'' '■"■*■' ,aoa(|mofi;r ,siiS >lAXi;^ i-^J'^wa sjbw tfcaiisqo n»riw gXocf 

^»T«Ma«'i , Blexoi i'lo feasi-xoffj-i Taxlorfjew 't© aoneasiq, ajti* nJ: xocf 

lo vsiv XXtfl ni 9ldMi « flo u:i^^ . ■ »ii;J aJoXX^cf 6Ai 

iisj.-LiiiiuogsoT: |)H6 .".noC ,i.:*. :;oXai ■ ' "•" »aO *« 

V . . .jaw htm *11 


fk^w ^Ofi f;ds%fi-.Xoo aoaqiUQXiT vSiM XiJ«« Aeftsaoc-K 

unalJle to continue; that Mrs. Tuttle then went to the aid of Mre, 
Hiompsoa; that the condition of Mrs. Thompeon tecas&e apparently- 
critical, end such as to cause fear that ehe was dying; that her 
huetand -was called by 'phone and kre. ThompBon was carried "by 
the lady officials to the rear of the premises; that during thie 
time Mr, Dona guarded the ballots , telling the ladies to attend 
t© Mrs. Thompson; that thereafter iire, Thoi^pson apparently re- 
vived and again attempted to perform her duties as an election 
official; that respondent Tuttle then telephoned to the llection 
CoEtmisaioners, telling them of the situation and asking assist- 
ance; and was told that she and other officials should continue 
to function; that respondents and other officials then again at- 
tempted to perform their duties; that respondent Wojcik vr&B 
obliged to aot as clarlt because the impaired vision of sr. Dona 
disqualified im from acting; that she continued to do so until 
she beeasae hysterical; her own testiiaony is thai the tallies looked 
"like posts" and that she called out she could not tally further, 
Mrs, Trkttle then said s'ae would have to tell the Election Commis- 
sioners "all about it, becaase three Dejnocrata can't handle it." 
Mrs, Tuttle then went to the drug store, accompanied by one of 
two Better Governiaent Association watchers who were in the polling 
place; Mrs, Tuttle told the ooiamissioners, "You have got to do 
something. We cannot cope ?/ith them« " They said they would send a 
squad over. Later three men eame from the Election CommlsBioners ' 
office; the spokesman of the three asked Mrs. Tuttle in a rude way 
if «5he 'anted them to weep on her shoulder. She asJsed 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 Siection Law 
that permits me to take one thiug. " "And I said, 'It will take 

aoi*99Xl -His oi fcaaoxiqela*^ cttii* sliiuT! iaobaeqaaT. iaxii '^JMloltlo 
-d-alsa* aai2iaj9 tm; noiJ<s«*is «ridr 'to aioii* ^alll»S ,8ienoiesai:mraoO 
e«jxjk^aoo LXiro£lB aXs^oiTto fisi^e bmt exfe ^sxi:;! t>Io;t s«w baa ;9on£ 
-#a «i«£j| i^ejci^ aX^laxTto xi^iifc beuiaia»baoqfi9% i&iii -.aolioau't oi 

Xlifat; ea o* oi" fcawnii'nop ©xie feti^lXewpali 

, oXiioo p ndt bn& "a^sog eixX" 

-eifi«R®0 nox*oftXK »£l[*,XX9cJ o;t 9v*ijd iiXu- ':i«B aoxl^f slj-;^!!/. . 

atBnootii^d 99TiJ&i aau»©?. : orf« XX#* i«&coie 

.;oY" ,sfs*a«slaaiiaiuo» «Jir Mol Gliiuf .sii j.'^oj-Xn 

'anonoIaaimmGO aoiJosXA •tli •;.- ' .b.i • .tsyo B««p« 

•V;*w ©^wi E ui ©XJ-J-i/X ,ai^ 60jLb« osidd afi^ Uc .lijiaajjjiuqs ^.r-c!- ;»nX'no 

©iliT xi&.liii't Jba* awo3 riwofe ,,.0*3 «8*oXX««f .silood wii ai«* ^'nfrXwoo 

«o^ i'l^l 9ffo v-Mw 9^it s^»w «<>X 'ii ,sX*;t«T .a-xM* ,?>lfla ari ;i£WOQ 

w«j: aolJoaX^, axLt nl aoHlyotfi oa el aiarU ;ao x;iaao oi areri fcX«ow 


all night,' He said, ♦! don't care if it takes you a week,' and 
I «iai<^ , 'All, W'' will do the l^est we knons' how, and if there 
is any trouble aljout it, it is your fault,' tie said, '0. k, 
sister' and went out." As a matter of fact, the tasks of these 
election officials wa»« not completed until 1:30 p, a. of tlie 
following flay, Ths trial Judge was right when he said, "It was 
■absolutely inhuman to ack them to do it*" 

These respondents are women of good reputation. There is 
no evidence taat either of them changed any ballot. On the con- 
trary th^re is positive proof whica shows beyond all reasonable 
doubt that they did not do any sucia thing. The trial Judge ex- 
pressly exonerated them from any intentional wron^ doing in the 
counting of the ballots, Thp findin,-?: of guilt as to them rests 
•ntirely upon the opinion of the expert as to the fact th?.t some 
of the ballots were "short penciled," coupled with the unquestioned 
fact that respondents could not explain when or by whom the ballots 
were changed. The investigation upon this point was by no means 
oomplete when the number of witnesses who were present is consid- 
ered. This finding of guilt as to these respondents is not sup- 
ported by evidence w ich should convince a court of their guilt. 
The JudgiaentB as to both respondents will tiiereiore be reversed and 
the cause remanded, 


O'Connor and l^.cSurely, JJ, , concur. 


t>^i ' ,w#rf 'Won::: : - . - ,J.ii;l-i IJUv' „^i«a I 

. . 'Cfa ^Iduoti ^fw al 

©«■..'-■ i^ ,-;y4:.'.i. i.«j i.':ij.<*ii,i , . wo *iisw toe '•jsi'gla 

9Jl^ .... .«. ,v v.<i;ji Xi;|HW *«;t?>Iqja<>. .u- ^'^«v «XA2Q^Tto floi^ogiXe 

3«w .tl" ,^KRn '^fi iT^rii- .+>:.fT «^« »8fttjit Ij$ tti ©ffT ,'ja|) gniwoXIo't 

• . , .i ii&Jj ilisp. oj xsaiaJLir.UtJt ^XeJuXotcfis 

tX«ljinos.r. -©iia aold'^ toaii ^rittr.oa s.: -; i ••»:>'. -r ^ir-ii' 

B*Bff>'L 'to [%ait>aXt »x£S! . ^tJ^oXXiMi;. •jW "^p .lHJtlWOO 

««oa o\9rid^ ;t3.».- jiocrxa 9xii "to noiriX^o ©ricf ao<];li %X»t|^^ 

■'di molt- ••>rfw cii&lqx' -jod staabaQq^^i $»iii ii^st 

aiwam '■■ .." -.icM.; Ti:;^ eot^if aai.*«ai*8®''' «.J>«a''«*^''=5 si^w 

•feiano..- oiiw aaaa-- ''^Iquioo 



Trustee, etc. , 





On Appeal of Wj^'rm PLASH, 




^9 I.A. 598 


Ti^iie is 8. foreclosure proeeeding in which a deoree was 
CKtered finding that Walter Plaeh, a defendant, was the owner and 
holder of certain 'bonds aggregating :&3100, with interest coupons 
attached, but decreeing that they are suhordinate to the lien of 
all the other unpaid Tsonds, with interest; Walter Plash appeals 
from tnat part of the deoree waich holds that these bonds should 
"be sutordinate tmd asks that they be held to be on a parity with 
the bonds of the plaintiff and all the otlier bonds secured by the 
trust deed, 

January 15, 1926, George flaozkievicz executed his 53 
bonds totalling #25,000, secured by trust deed conveying the 
premises thexein described; the bonds bo're interest at 60 per 
annum and matured at different dates, the last of th^ maturing 
January 15, 1933; bonds iios. 1 to 8 aggregating #4000 were paid 
at their respective maturities and canceled* 

On or atout January 15, iy33, when the loan matured 
Placzkiewicz solicited the bondliolders lor an extension of time 
within miicii to pay the principal and for a reduction of interest 
from 6:i to 3/i; the laaster found that at this tixae he made repre- 
sentations to the bondiiolders that the balance of the mortgage 
debt then due was $18,000; in reliance on these representations 
the owners of a ma.lority of the bonds executed written agreeuienti 






es .A.I oe 

UjOi, ajiT '^O iWIVtllO B^ (IKHKVIJ;,;a Y.IEfIURoM TOITi..UI- .n 

feiis •tail'. ' . , 

dilw x*la«q: « ao ^a wj «**£[ srf ":•' 

■iin i.-o- 

(."14 J«ii 

iQlU :..a.-. 


J ■ > 

■• 'fff+'V 

'to adno'i' 


,.:, .1... &©JiUO«>X& Uo.'- :-: 

•i, I : a ST •• ■ J ?i i ff:!'';-'- 

,OnO,?!g$ 3jnJ;II>,tn.t ar^noi 

>t»'illA *JB bcii/^jBia £>i-Ui ffluniifi 

bieq ftiaw 00o*t. ^xti;^^^»r£s*j^jB 8 o3- X ,Boa ahaocf ;r.eeX «5X v:i£«iiuit 

Sfflicf- '10 fliolausifxo ti» •lot e^«.bXoxll>rioa' «il^ ftsJioiXoa soiwslisoBX'i 
Jaaaeini 'to aoi*ou.f)9'x & tc igi; «xid- ^^q o;; jlx-cfiw 

assenting to these proBOsals and for a time some of them recdlTCd 
interest at Z%; others received nothing, so tiiat in Boveiiiber, 
193S, this foreclosure proceeding was coramenoed, Walter Plash 
filed his answer asserting: that he was the legal o~'Mflr ajid holder 
of "bonds aggregating |3100, 

At the hearing before the master Plash, the son of de- 
fendant Placslciewiez, appeared "by counsel and introduced in evi- 
dence bonis iJos. 14, 20, 21, 50 and 51, agcrecating -53100, uncan- 
celed, and asserted that he owned them; however, he, by his coun- 
sel , agreed that the master mi^iit find that the lien of boiids i-'os, 
14 and 21, aggregating |600, should be subordinated to the lien of 
all the other bonds, and the master found accord inj_,ly, iond found 
that bonds los, 20, 5C and 51, aggregating $2500, belonged to 
Plash and were on a parity Trith the other bonds. 

Some time thereafter a petition v»as filed by the bondnold- 
era' protective conuTilttee, alleging that all the bonds held by 
Plaah had been paid by the maker, his father, and should be raarjied 
paid and canceled; a re-referenoe was had to tne master and evi- 
dence as to these bonds was heard. In brief, it was developed 
that Plash lived at horse with nia father until about the fall of 
1934, '^ayint-?, no board; that he was eiaployed on a deliv ry route 
by a dairy Gonpany, Plaozkiewica, tiie father, procured the bonds 
in question, uncanceled, from the holders, but both Plash and his 
father testified that in so doin^^j the father was acting as agent 
for the son. Their testimony is vague and contradict<»Ty 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 unTJaid raort.^age was :)13,000; he Jmew that several of the 
bondholders, relying upon this representation, executed agreeiaente 
extending the payment of the principal and to accept 3;^ interest 

l^r. Inii foro; •Sfuivo 

,?»X »£[;*• s.ew -sii "■ fiicxsa®* iswBxts ai/l fcallTC 

.'joISf gni^^jsasttsa* tAnoof to 

-iisi>rKf ,0GIf,% gflitea^isjia « i9 *»«* 0« ,Xe -,08 ,M ,a«a »fc.flocf aensfe 

.- r^.TT srft frrts .at.fncf Tfir' .in 

. .^f- ■> f'a-s5 rfar.X*! 

'f'.jayts'tST-O'S « ;fe«£eoa«6 bfus f)ijaq 

' .e>i>:.u^ofiif ^aQ-i'^ssksf' al 
:.RxLi hal'tiiaet tadtat 

. ,. ■, o.iu- J K 'J a 1 1 aiiX . ao '■ - • ■ -t o't 

...-VV... ■:. « ;.-aifeJtf!rairl .Koifen©;^ 

; , 8«W »5^;^.#1©Bt M«Qatf 9dt 1© 

•ir«>T :'x :j MofTu ^ttixlBt , aiafcXorifcaorf 


v.-ir.i'- j,(.'i j,)»n'u 


instead of 6%. Witnesses testified that Placzkiewioa said he 
had 'bou^.tit up |3000 wortu of tnese bonds although they were uot 
eanceled. These facts, to^etaer ^-ith other details, ^jgnvinced the 
master, who heard the witnesses testify, that the "bcnda >rhich 
Plash claiEisd to own had ii- luct "been paid by i'laozi.iewisa, the 
mortgagor, xad found that they siiould he laarked paid aoid canceled 
and their lien extlnguii:;hed, 

Plaeakiewicz arid Plash filed objections to the reoort 'A'hich 
were argued a.3 ei-oeptions befcre the chancellor. Placziciewica had 
testififed tiij.t hie acn had iiaid, in satstai-ce, to p4i.y tue other 
iDcndaolders fust - that he woald "be "the last one y:u pay. Pay 
tiie rest of the^.* ar^d you pay me with what is fc-oing to be left," 
The chancellor was evideiitlji' iiupressed by xais testimony c-jad sus- 
tained exoeptione to the ma.Bter's report and found tuat Plash was 
the oTi'ner acd holder of the bonds in questioa, but that he had evi- 
deiiced ari intention to subordinate them, together with all unpaid 
interest coupons, and it was decreed that all of the bonds which 
f'l&sh owned 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 
outetsjadia^ bonds. We do not think it necessary to decide this 
question for we are of the opinion tiiat the mastc-r in his supple- 
mental report properly found that the bonds iios. 14, 20, £1, 5C and 
51, aggregating #3100, had been bought by Placzkiewioz, the mort- 
gagor, from various bondixolders and he thereby becfuae the owner and 
holder of them, witxi interest coupons; that for the purpose of con- 
venience Plaozkiewicz transferred them to Plash, ais son, but that 
PlatOx acquired no greater rigiit or interest in them than Piaczkie- 
wicz had; the master found tiiat the lien of these bonds and interest 
coupons on the real estate involved was canceled and extinguished. 

:o -iiow 0. .... ^„ , 3i,a(( Jbisrf 


- 1 (S9j;jti,sojriI-'. 

J ill *4S.xl. . . as** 

'.i.d'K tiiiM sja ^«q won fia. Dili" 

lEsdi^o XX« 0^ 9bao<i %ltL to <ia«X% %4 a^itmalbiodu* h^-^ttlLM »sii tot 
nidi •l>lo9& 6i ^tJB«a»«»i3i *1 ititsit ion at: »ci .s ;u.,r :,'..; J a4y« 

. .'' sidf>Xoii.i£i>tocr ajaoi'X£T AOT't «%9S«a 

.;o>jiJOo •J8»a--5#:«1: iiJ'lw .ma^^r 'to i&blod 

'V3^«*lfiiMtt K9Xwaiiso£X<i: aonaXxniT 

laci^issiS Oft b^ikupta lf»AXf 

^••itatnl baa 

,f^QdatixstniSx9 bat JbeXesm 

Plaintiff in its cTr'.ef esks thic court tiie dsarod; "be 
reversed an<i that tids court eiiter a dt»cree in acuordai'40«* v?.(.t-i cue 
findings of the naeter in his auppl es^fintal repoi't. i^poii orai 
argument enuneel etated that it ifff^s ii:.jE.&,t trial to piaintil'l" 
whether thi? be dene or the decree affitTaed, e-videivtiy fciiniiing 
that it Kfide no practical diffarej.ce to pifaix-tilf whetaer the 
tondB claimed "by Plt-eh "be c&Xtceled or subordinated to the lien 
of the other bonds, L'nder these circuiiietajaces, and for the 
reasons indicated, -he decree is affirmed. 


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

trf eft's'; hit •yUtm tdl-xc ' 'nWaJt.el-'. 

■nauco j'neflujgia 

.ijjoaf:: J. .■•ofUicO'C ■ ,, . , i'idjotfiM 



Appellee, ) 


flITY GIT CHICAGO, a iunicipal 
Go rpo ration, 



290 I.A. 598'' 


An autoj:riObil« in which plaintiff was riding with he-r 
hustand was struck "by a fire depaxtment truck of defendaiit; she 
■brought 3uit and had jud^ijaient for $1500, from wliieh defendant ap- 

The aeeident happened April 14, 1935, at 6:50 p. m, at 
the intereeotion of Western boulevard ajid Archer avenue in Giiicago; 
Western boulevard runs north arid south and is intersected by Archer 
avenue, which runs southwesterly; the automobile in wiich plaintiff 
was riding was driven southwesterly in Archer avenue; wheu it csKie 
to Western boulevard it stopped at the northeast coiner, waiting 
for the green traffic light; when tne lignt 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, ti:irowing plain- 
tiff out of the car and injuring her. 

The trucJi 7?as a supply truck, used at the time in hauling 
dirt for fixing a garden for the fire department; it was empty and 
was returning oorth on Western boulevard to the equipment shop; 
when the red light went against 'Western biulevard traffic ten or 
twelve north bound cars on Western avenue stopped at the south side 
of Archer, but 's truck swung to the left arid wexit around 
th«B on the left side of the safety island and on across Archer, 
K through the red light, while the traffic was aioving in Archer with 



( .YAdAJffi; TSAM 



62 .Ajoes 

i»ri jii^flir iaa-vfei:'! ajEjw Tt'tic^aiiilq rloliiw ni •Xl<fomo*ira n^'. 
-q^ ;tnis&xi9t«A iiolaw laoi't ,0()SX# lo't iswm:^bks\, J&ksri JbfUs ^luo ^d^uot^i 

;o»»oiiW ill siiaava isiiaicA biia b'iBVf>£uo<.i tKLs>i»t>'^ 'to aot&oe»i9ial sxl* 

■ssiio^A ^cf i)»iro»8'i3 3^ai si bsm tliuos bi-m xiiioa aout bt^rsluoii msiedV 

TtiiaifilQ dgiiiiw ui 9lt(ioaxoiu& &sii ;xS.t6ie'dVtiSvoa mmn ixoldw .oundv* 

9imt> &l a&dn j»un«Ta 'tmioiA ai i£i'x«»;?8»'Wil*«oa cwvItcI) B«ir -galbtz 8«w 

-©Jw« ©xid- naeta £)9iKift JriaiX siid" asriw ;*fl;aJtI ne»Tta sfl* ■xo'l 

i>aa luod tm esXiia •vi't i^uocTjB is btersluotS 9AS 8»<n:«>« fte j-tc*!*«i sXicfoa 

Sievslwod HKtiad^asW 'to »n±X cfiuo £n9;fs©w «/£i 'to ;Js»'t ssrdt nldilvf caw 

»•>< ■■ ^^ -.,<- 1- -o ';-,!,.» ^-.i-oini' tnsjod jtijion 8' Jnaiba»l©6 y*^ Hosrtte bjbw rfl nsiiw 

,10x1 jjiiitiiftni Biia ts© «/i;^ 'to iuo Yttt 

a.aiX/u«il nl emlJ- 6di itB fc©«jj ,3toifi* Y^tQ^we je R««r iajjic^ e-ilT 

baa "Vl^t**^® ^^^' •ii ;i*asat;ri:.«q»^ »iJ:1 dsii ao't risfii^s ^ gnlxit lo'l &tib 

;qQd» itmuqlupa 9ni ©* t>a£.v»Xifoo' ats^es'*!^ ao ff*ioo ^alaiuier bjbw 

•xo ria^ oi'l'te'i* biBv^lv^d inaiasiW ^aaius* *n«w *rfjjiX Sen »xl* aariw 

©l>ls ii^tuoB sriJ- ^^ icqQO^a 9i;iJ»vj« ii-xsJaaW no siso fcat-ocf xi*ion svlsw^ 

bauo'Ui inaw jbas *"iaX aiir oi amma 3toMi* «' ^oeJbna'tah twcf ^laiioiA "io 

.laxioiA aeoio« xio bm? DiWiXai via'tjss srfd" lo »bie &t^l fnH no ararf* 

the green light; there was evidence that the driver of the truck 
was intoxicated at the time, 

'M.T, Blagay, plaintiff's huslaarid, ''"'■ho was drivirxt, the auto- 
moTsile, could not see the fire truck hocause of a large Buick cer 
traveling on Archer just south of him which shut off hie view; 
when the Buick car reached the center of '^esttjrn it made a left 
turn, to the aouth, and ieiHiediately thereai'ter the truck struck 
the auto-iobile in which plaintiff was riding, 

'£h.e evidence shows that the truck in question was not 
"being operated at the tine in any governiiental capacity. It was a 
supply truck used at the tiiae in h?-iuling dirt in maii^ing a rock 
garden. It was ohviously used in a sixjisterial capacity. Xhe 
automobile invol^'-ed in Johra^t^v, ^ity of Chicago . 256 111. 494, 
was used at the time of tiie accident hy ei-ployees of the Gity in 
conveying "books from one li"brary to anotlier. It n&B aeld that 
this Was pls,inly a mltilBterial duty and the City v/as liable. 
Other cases Involving similar facte in wiilch the defeiidsait city 
was held liable are Devine v. City of Chicago . 21S 111. App. 299, 
Schicldt V. City of ChicaKO. 284 111. App. 570, Wasilevitsky v > 
City of Chicago. 280 111, App. 531, and Hanrahan v. City of Chicago . 
289 111, 400, In the light of these decisione and the circuicstaneee 
in the inetant case, defendant must be held liable. 

Plaintiff also asserted that even if defendant was at the 
time operating the truck in a govemisental capacity it would "be 
liable under the statute relating to the liability for injuriei 
caused by the operation of motor veiiolee by Eiembers of municipal 
fire departments while enfe;aged in the perioriuance of tlxeir dutiee, 
approved July 7, 1931. Chap. 24, par. 937(1). .11. State tar Stats, 
1935. The major part of defendant's brief and arj^uiaent maKes the 
contention that this statute is unconstitutional and void, The 
Civil Practice act (chap, lio, par. 203) requires that all cases 

jCairr* silt 'to imvlih •sit SbiH »ondbir9 ««v 9it9di ;^fij^jtl n^Qt^ 9iiS 

;w*».i- -ixis jcLolxiw mi a 'to li.v 894X*vintl, ' 

« ajp. . ,jio*t(ij30 XaJiJftjsiiTisrejsj '^fiu al ©mid a^ *« J&e;t«i9qo aaiad" 

iocs a aiiisUjiB al iJ-xil? ^ciiluctL ni »«i* ©jfii' *« feoajj ioxnJ -^Iggi^* 

,l=eik .lii eas . o ;j v>s3ij;10 't& -y^iO ^Y .fyi^ ^ftel. ai *«vXev*u. aiLaoutoJaA 
ill x;^"^^'' *'i*'' '^0 a9»'^6Xtpii» ijrf *a»felao« ©rf* 1© 9>nii arl^ jt^ Jbdaxi bow 

.sXcfsiX eiSi^y x^-fc^ arij bm xiu^ lali^inXnXx * y;Xni«Ig a^w ®tif* 

,9eS .QCjA .XXI 5XS . QaaoJtfiai to y»IO «y aifav«>g »%» «Xd«iX £-X»rf ««w 

.7 rjl&iii^f9llBfi'^ ,0V 3 ,q«A ax I *8g tJSMMMJjLXJA^^T , .^^.IfflA^ 

■ u,y...iiiv,' "JQ v.^iP. .y g axiamal? tais .X68 .«!<sA .XXX 06,£ ,£MaiiS^«LYjLi2. 

„,-,, r,,. i,-5e:j;oii3 sii.^ bm 6aoiHXt>9b »ii9d4 '10 *iliiiX bM al ,Q.Q1^ ,111 «6S 

»d' tluoti ti ^iiajBqi.6 X&iira®>iU'ai&vos « ■«•* J'®Af'i4' •^ j»xii*««0Qo s-ni* 

Bsliwtai ta't xHnti&lI »iii a* ®«i**X9« »*«*«*« ♦it* «•*«« »Xcr«lX 

La«i&XatJ« 'to a%&dm»ia. ^c< «®Xfilii«v 'K.«*o«a 1o floi*iST«»qo «4* -^rf ^»a«ea 

,«»i*Hfc tis'd* 'io stiOiwaio'irsa^ ail?: xil h&^m^^ aXliiw »*.f»ii{^«eq*fr »tiXT; 

.a*#d-a -x*<x »*s* ,(x)V8@ .t«<i ,i^g .q^?^x«o .i?:yx ,v ^i^'^- &»^o'J<?^« 

srd'i' *bi«5>Tr £>«« ijBiSoiiii{fit9i3ooasi si tiiu&B^s 9i4i *»rf» H<jiJn©*ao» 

involving the validity of a statute •Jrtiould toe appealed to the 
Supreiue court, tmd ii it "be taken to the Apisellate court the party 
taking tbe appeal will be neld to Jaave waived tiae conetitutional 
Queetion, iiie .People v . L awson . 351 111. 507, 509. ISe therefore 
siaall not attempt to pass upon tne constitutionality ol the act in 

Defendant questions the sufficiency of the statutory notice 
03" the accident smd injuries filed v/itu the City, saying that the 
plaintiff failed to prove that ene resided at the addreee given in 
the notice, Ihe point is witiiout luerit. It was oufficiently 
proved taat she resided at the address of her Husband given in 
the notice. 

The Judgment is ai'firxaed. 

Matehett, P. J., and 'Connor., J., concur. 


i'ielo's*:- ' * -•-' .eos ^foe ♦iXI lac . aeawad .v altyo g 'i gxfX .«ol#««ii(p 

9sii istii ^nlxe* ^x^t'O 9A.7 ,. jilt ztiiivl- 
at aayl'a &»^'i'ybe »rii- ir, h^bis- -jri^f orov IJ-aljsXq 

.ivuiiC'.: ,. , io<;aoO' .. 4,' ,. ..,,*■ alio.* aM 


corporation, as Trustee under tiie Last 
Will and Xestajnent and Codicils tliereto 
of JoaDS HAJiiSUKaiR , foiroerly J03IS 
!>• STBIxJ, Deceased, 



RICHARD S. L^WTOK, AIJi: L.V:TTOK , a minor, 
HAROLD ^. LIi5BKL,3TEIK, .^r. , a minor, 
HOSPITAL, a GorT^o^ation , TilE 'JZnSil 
GHARITIiiS OS' CHICAGO, a Corporation, 
person or persons not in being, 

Def en j.ants. 



90I.A. 598" 




I'he i>iortliern Trust Company as Trustee, plaintifl", filed 
its loill asicing leave to resign as trustee ol" a $100,000 trust 
created by tne first codicil to the last will of Josie L, bteir, , 
deceased; defendants Florence L, Hickman and her son, Charles 
Sharpless Hickman, filed what is designated as a counterclaim, 
asking for a construction of the will in certain respects here- 
after noted; plaintiff moved to strike this counterclaiia, assert- 
ing among other reasons that it had been filed prejnaturely; the 
chancellor sustained this motion, and Utb, Hickman and her son 
Charles, defendants, appeal from this order. 

Plaintiff alleged that on April 30, 1933, Josie iiamburger. 
formerly Josie L. Stein, departed this life, leaving a last v?iii 
aad testament and two codicils thereto; the complaint suirm.arizes 
the contents of the will and codicils and asks that the court 

^ £8ew 

'' EIBOt >iIl9i!no1t ,; to 

O ^1 "^ f, "i' ■ A O # 

■;;u. -' 


11 kii..Ii 

■ «•"■' 

inm ,aSYAM STlMiiiSX .HaYAM .0 

rlOi^UnO ?;h; Ul .-'iiiV iJ^JU J(a.. JiUc.0.a& ii;ii\ 

ieuii- 000, OOX^ a 'to 99*aya5 8« 03^x8*1 o* «v«sl sniataa IXio b*1 

,rti»t« .J 8isoX, "to iXjtw iH&l »dt oi Ixolfcoo d-ail't ®xi* ijrf fe***;*-!© 

B9lT*;iiO ,ao8 tna bOM neanislH ,J •oaoiol'i^ s*^aJb^»'t9^ ;&«njs9o»6 

,Bil«Io:iB*niroo « «.c f>«:tjBnaie»f) si *ariw balJt't .cuwcfo IK sasXqxeriS 

»d.i- ; YXerti; d'.fiaiaiq fc®ii'l «»9d bad $1 isiii Bnoaasn isfUo ^aoma anl 

noe len bafl aeiiatoixi .aiJA fen^ .noicToas aiiU MaiAievs ToiLeocuda 

.xeMo aiii* aioi't Xeocfqa .•d'fUBfea^tat) jgaXtfiXiO 

IXlw ;fa«X JB anivssX ,«'ilX jslrt* fc9;ti:«CTafi ,ni»*e ..I ©laoX x-tiea^o** 

assitsiarajus ^fii^Xqmoo Qdi ; oit-tmii aXioilsoo ow* ftits cffi»m»*a9* feci* 

Jtcuoo ari* ^Ail* aat8« bm aUotboQ bm IXlw »ric? to 8*ns*noo Rri^ 

appoint a guardian ad litem for certain minors; tiiat tne resigna- 
tior; ol" tte trustee Toe accepted, its accounta approved and it "be 
discharged aa trustee; that an order "be entered appointuig a 
succe«Ecr-truetee, and plaintiff be allowed reasonable coiupensa- 
tlon for its aervicei. The appealing defendants argue tuat the 
complaint set forth plaintiff's interpretation of tAie will, and in 
their count -rol aim allege a construction different fro.: that 
placed upon it by plaintiff. Sxaunination of the complaint does 
net support this claim, Tiie complaint merely euianiarizes the con- 
tents of the will and codicils without any interpretation of any 
of the provisions. 

The testatrix, Joaie Stein, before her marriage to Aladar 
Hamburger, executed on June 30, 19 31, her last will and testament; 
after directing that her just debts and funeral expensee be paid 
she made specific bequests totaling .|52,700, :ind provided for tiie 
distribution of her jewelry; by section 4 of the will she provided 
that if JT-orence L, Hicltman, the testatrix's sister, should survive 
her (wiilch event occurred) she was to receive from the residue of 
the estate $30,000; if Florence Hickman should die orior to the 
death of testatrix, hpr son Charles Sharplees Hick&ian should have 
the net income of a trust fund of #30,000; two other bequests of 
^3000 eacli were made to two cousins. 

March 3, 1932, Jos^e Stein executed a codicil to her will 
in whioli she eliminated a bequest to the Chicago Hoaie for Jewish 
Orphans and added a bequest of |1000 to the Institute of Religion; 
she also gave |100,000 to The Jslorthem Trust Coiopany in trust, 
conditioned upon hsr conteiaplated marria&e with Aladar Hamburger, 
in whi-eh event the trustee should pay the net incoffie from the 
trust fund of .flOO.OOO to nim for life, provided that at the time 
of the testatrix's death h© should be living -and married to her. 

has fi*roiQOJ8 «d"a</c--. ,;».". ■: .'a.ut;}' ^:ii '•. 

..i .bits , Iliv 9riJ lo iioJ:jB*«iqaad"a/ -i^Xq liiiol *»« jaiftlqiaoe 

.anoialvotq -^ 't >'> 

;*n»flisiB9;r bOM Iliw oajeX isri „X<;OX ,0£ «ai;I» no fcsiuosxs ,i«8t«(fau5H 

fcl«q acf •eanftqxe Xarttaw't Jbas sJiafc ^sut "S®^ *axl^ 3ni*o»aife t©*!* 

•xii' io1 fcafcivo'xq fcoc ,OQV»S§| soiXsio* ai-a9tT3':f o^tio^^ cr« afcara ©xCa 

Asfclvoiq aria XXiw »Ai "to J^ aoiJoas xd ;vtXawsi j.d'wdi'i^Bifr 

©viviua JiXuciis ,'i9^ai:$ a'.xiii'e^e^'i «rf* ,ryuBUiol;H «vl asne^oX? li JjJrf;^ 

to ai'Jbiaaa 6di aioi'i aviaoai oiT ajBw oiia (l»»«tfcfsoo *»ar» rfolJlw) nari 

axitf 0*? loitq aif) JbX»©£ie fleautoiM aaaaioXt '11 jQ(KJ^O£| a*«l«© ari* 

avaxt JBXwoxie aaiosio^H aaaXq^eriP aaX-x^riJ) aoa t^d <xla*s*aej- to xi#«a» 

to »*89wpacl «a<Wo ow;^ jOOu,0€^ 'to fcai-'i *8iii* ^ "to amaoni 4ais stii 

»9ciiBuoo ow* 3* afeaia aiaw riojia O0G5# 
XXiw aaii o* Iioi.Jboo * kfi^ao&xs oi.©.^^ aj^aoi. ,S?«X ,8 riait*-* 

iiaivaX- -lo'i a^ox. ©5s«oiriD »«ii o* *aaap©cl « J^Aihaiisila ^lis iisliiw «!: 

:floiaiXa*i io •♦wd-iiTaal *xU- a;f QOOXi Ic ^taaopacf « ^aJbfc« .ba« aas^q^O 

,;f8jyi;t njt Y.a»«»HoO ?firtE^ a«aii#T«A orfT o4 OOO,O0X)| 9T«a paX* a<(B 

,i:a3"s*;tffiwH "JwfcjBX^ ri^iw, asj«X7*Bi8 tat^Xqaastnoa t»rf ao«i» 5«Hoi;rlbaoo 

:,.«!# ifsei'i a^ooaX *»« ©jid# t«<I feXi;»j4i saj-ai/n* e^j- *nave ria^Jriw at 

9mtt a^* *« *«iii t9biyorq ,atXX -xo'i «uia o* CKK),OOX$ 'to Hawt .teat* 

.rtsxi o.t 6«iTi«« bfw satiTlX »cf feXuojEla oti gi.isi9b a'xttisia9S - r iv, 

At the time ol* testatrix's death Aladar Hamburger was living 
and married to iier and iie ie, still living, 

April 22, 1933, she executed a sc-oand codicil to iier vill; 
having married Hamburger siae daseribee iiersell" in this second codi- 
cil as "Josie Haiaburger {I'oiiuerly Josie L, btein)"; in tliie codicil 
she refers to the former codicil in which she created a trust fund 
of 1X00,000 with The Sortiiern Trust Company as trustee, the net in- 
oome from this to be paid to Aladar Hauaburger during ais life, arid 
says: "It is roy desire, and I hereby direct, that tel'cre saiy other 
gifts, becuests or devises be paid onder my Last Will c^jid Testa^i-ent 
and codicil (referring to the bequest of 11,000.00 to tne Insti- 
tute of Religion, as provided in said Codicil), sail trust fond of 
One Hundred Thousand Dollars {#100,OOC,00) be first set up," She 
reaffirmed her last will and the prior codicil tiieroto. Plaintiff 
hsie been adrainisteriiig this trust fund as provided for ia the codi- 
cils, :ani. it is froai this trusteesnip it is sQe,.iirig to resign. 

In their aountarclalm defendants allege that ■.■■'iii.le tiie 
testatrix left an estate in excess of $100,000, it ia lesa than 
sufficiont to pay in full, in ad'Jition to this '^100,000, the spe- 
cific bequests provided for in the second paragraph of the will, 
and that unless the buxh of $30,000 is paid to Florence iiiciman from 
the 1100,000 trust fund upon the deatn of iUadar Haiaburger there is 
Bo other source from which said sum inay be paid; the counterclaim 
alleges an acibiguity in the will and aske the court to decree that 
upon the (5eath of Aladar Haiaburger the trustee appointed under the 
will and its codicils, or its successor-trustee, shall pay to 
yiorence L. diokman $30,000 prior to making other diatribationa 
provided for in the will. 

The estate is still in the Probate court, not yet coiapletely 
administered; the trust fund of $100,000 has been established and 
plaintiff has been actitg as trustee thereof, Evidex.tly defendai-^tg 

lioiSco aliij ai ;*lai«tci ,J. •iaoli -(jXTC^uiaic'i ) ^sjj'iudifijsh ©isaX." «« Xip 

- tau't ^sf-x.t' £; i>3jr«9«9 9iie ufiitiiw ai: Xlolbos <x3ia<x«'l »sLi oi eto'tei a tie 

-ai Ssta »^ ,9aisxn;t sjs ^m<<pL(»0 tBi/ili' at»tU'XQ)i eifX x£^lw 000,00X4 *tO 

&j.x>^ ,dllX alii ■iiilliiii x^i^'iuditiMii rtabtiX^v oi .6i«(t »cf oi' »liii JHO-xl »£ioi> 

-irfsnl 9rld oi ao,eoo,X$ 'lo j^aups^ ifll'aT:«t9<x ) XiolJbo© bajs 

lo Li-u-'i ^ejjij iJtisa ,(XxoiboU fclise ui fcafiivoT- .- ,<\ot^l.i^R 1« ■Sv+i^^ 

itil& ".«£) ^98 ^s-xxx 8U (uu.uOO^O&Xf } iieXXo^ ttu&avoii'S beibau^ ^aO 

'i'lkimlMlH. ,oifi%asiS LtoXhe^ ipirq. 9zxi rna Lllw tt^&i xad b^sal'ltAQt 

-iijfeo siiJ ai to'i istive^q e« fcxui'i I»*/t* sixi^ s'^'X^^^'^^'S'J!^ oes^ ©^xi 

.fisis^i oi ,,iili,©©a «i Ji <iiiia«9i'«ti* siii^ loci't si ^i. J-n* .sXio 

eu^ £>Xi;xxv. fjBji;f os^XXb ej^a^Loe'idl) isZ^Xeifi^uuott alexia ill 

-55 q« ©iitf ,QVU,v>OXs^ sijtia- ©^ aox^ii'Jbjd ai »(XX^. tt^t Y*4 «^ d'i»i:fiJ;'i*Ixr« 

aoi'Jt oBOuio ill oaaeaoXU o* bl&q, 9l 000,Ofi$. ^» iawt axi? eaeXau *Aii;r .bns 

81 e-xaiiif ^»»-sudmBH ib6«XA to fi;t»9l3 sii* jooqu I>hs/'1 Stutt 000,001^ »di 

i&iAiQt&inuQQ adi ;I>iisq. 9cf x&i&^miiB tlM& ti»JL^ m&i't ••liioa TieriJo OS 

ii Xsti IXjaxla ,»»*«ui*-:cof<»»o©«« »iJ. < . ioifeoo »*! fcne ILlp 

bu£ f)axiaXitfa;rao iw>»cf aJExl OpO,OOX^ to bau'l i%ux$ *xii ; |>»tt0d-B lalKfce 


anticipate tlxat tae estate will "be insufficient to pay .ail tii^ be- 

queate ^vu'\ fsar tnat unless they receive the #30,000 bequaet out 

of the ^^100, 000 trust fund tney may *'iot reeeire this bequc«?t. It 

is apoarent tnivt tne defendants are asking the court to adjudicate, 

at this tiiiie, tiieir rights to |3u,000 of this trust lur.d at the 

tiaie in the future when Aiadar llaciturger dies. 

Plaintiff in its motion to strike this oounteSclaiffi setB 

out that the object of the counterclaim was to determine the rights 

of the Hickmans at a future date and not their present rights and 

to decide Questions depending on facts which are contingent and may 

never arise. It was also shown that there "^as no controversy -at 

the present time "bsoause Aiadar Hamburger was still living ^xid no 

one was entitled to any distribution of the trust fund until his 

death, and no one except the defendants hajs/Rny claim in resoect 

thereto. We are of the opinion that the court oroperly sustsined 
the motion to strike tne oounterelaim. 

rnere are a nuiaber of events which mirht occur before the 
death ofjiamburger^hich would msJce any adjudication or conBtruction 
©T the will unnecessary) itrs. .iickia.'vn may never become entitled to 
receive the $30,000 bequest if ooth she and her son Charles die 
tJefore Hamburger dies, and if her son leaves no issue the #30.000 
Request reverta to the surviving brothers of the testatrix or 
their issue. 

Another eontingenoy which might arise is that at the time 
of the death of Hamburger the $100,000 trust fund mi,-ht be com- 
pletely wiped out through shrinkage or otft/epwise. Another event 
which might occur ia that at the time of una deatn of ha^urger the 
Talue of the estate of the testatrix might be sufficient to^"aI/iil 
th« bequests in addition to the ,1100,000 trust fund. 

Counsel for olaintiff also sue^ests that po.eibly. at the 

eixiJ ©vl9o*'i ^ii Afliul'fiiWS'- 000. 00X1 ©x» 'to 

a^« /MisIotaJnuc r rioiiom nil alYtttaiult 

ta^j', ' ..lialA^ei) 9t mmw tuaiotainuoo txf^ 'to J^o»t«fo ftiil^ J^aift #aro 

, ■ ' ■ •'i/»a- 
8 iff XlJn*/' Bfli/t i^ajj^j arij 'to aotiudtitoib t«*> ©* fcelrfl*"* ba1#' #«b 

fi©.-'-:*-' -■ "/•:--'—- -4^.,™., ^rj-f ^fjBfij. no 1 rtiq:© »il* '1© sib st ,o:t6%»sii 

^ .J ^.. ,.. ^- . . _ rjc^jM ifeiriw 8*fiev« 'to l«cfaujn a 6ic« •■taxiT 

o >ad aModarf •sivatf tc«« a/uaololli ♦••tiS Ct*«««»i9«maar XXlw sAi ^~ 

... sf^'lWite'rfdis *r«Sjrf fcflbei a^a' rf»©rf 11 ^aaiipad" 000,05$ «rii evisoai 
0OT5,?^ sftTdaX flroi laitl tl Jbaus ,e®li5 tsaiacTflwH anolaoT 

mW 'to atOJti^dttf saivivlwB siiit o^ fiisYs-i tasupacr 

>?sfTii jfx%|i^ ifoiifw •^najiKJ-.Jnoo t*r[*onA 
-doo ©rf ithidm. Bitxrl Jam* OO(5,'0OXt art* isaTJurfmcE to ii*«»fe ail* lo 

■ilv* •xojj^i^ofda^ I0 rf*iBaJS» 'il^ia' xloirfw 

IXi;1 oi ,• ,. 

.&Hii*t *• ' ,00i!^ »xl;f c;^ iioxi-iJjJb^ ii-i aJ89Jjpecf ad* 

timp of the deatli of Ha-mturger, there might he no one to dispute 

Mre, Hickman's interpretation of tae «ill, or if tixere ie soffe 

one in interest they might agree to it. 

It is well established txiat a court will not construe a 

will merely for the sake of giving advice. There must he actual 

litigation heforfi/ interposition of a oourt of equity can be 

sought. In 69 Corpus Juris, beginning at page 353, is an extended 

diaeueaion of tiiis subject, witn the conclusion tuat courts will 

not construe a will wnere the object sought is to determine future 

rij^hta deoen^ing on facts ".iiioh lixe contingent and may never arise, 

A large number of aupoorting cases ure cited, atiiong them Strs w n j j, 

JaoXaonY ille AcadeL' iy. 240 111. Ill, where it was eaid: '•Courts of 

equity will never entertain a suit to tiive a construetion to or 

declare the rights of parties upon h state of facte wuici has not 

yet arisen, nor urjon a matter which is I'uture, contin^^ent and un- 

©artaln." Among the many other oases to tne same effect are 

Chicago T, & fv. Co. v. City of Waukegan. 333 111. 577, 531; 

W alker v. ^irat Trust & Savings Bank, 12 P. (2d) 89 6, 903; 

Norton V. iiloren . 206 Ky, 415 (430, 431), and Woods v. d uller . 61 

Maryland, 457, 460. Also Pomeroy's iilquity Jurisprudence, (4th ed. ) 

vol. 3, seo, 1157, p. 2741. 

Gases cited by defendants are not applicable. A typical 
case is Bender v. Bender . 292 111, 353, wnere tnere viaa an actual 
controversy between three of tue children of the testator and their 
mother aiid other children. Also in O hio oil Co. y^ Daughet ee, 240 
111., 361, where a bill wu,e f.i.l'd to protect the interest of a re- 
mainderman against xhe wrongful acts of a life tenant tending to 
despoil the inheritance. 

In the instant case no controversy is presented cuid tnere 
is no present necessity for the deteriuination sou^^t by def er^iaiita 
and there may never be any such necessity. 

The court properly found that the counterclaim was brought 
prematurely ai;d it was properly disaiissed for that reason. 

^fhe order of the trial court is affirmed, 

Matohett, P, J., and 0»Ceiinor, J., concur. 

£( swxfeaoo ion XXiw cfiijco ,>.- :*irid- &»ri8iXtf«*a9 iXsf' 

■ \ ' arid' 

.i-ii-j:;:- "fsran icaai Jboa #aojjnXJ fa-. 

to eJTifoO* ;iMa« aev *i ®icf 
, aoi+J>U'r;tenot> r ?^' 
ion «j£-. 

'. Rl&iraiat tavea Xltw \,*i«pa 
ocTif aai^TUjq; io B*ifaxTr ftitO s-scjsI^aJb 
iiiw ts^fJ^ci e aoory ton ^aeettx f9% 
DS£'ts sfiiesa 'iaS o& asafio isdi'o y"«*k •^^ IsnofliA "'.Hifl^TC.e* 
jiae ,rV3 ,IH eeg ^aa^^ttj^yyV- 'Xq y:j-XU, ^y ^ oP ^ly j&. .,T osiJPi:riP 

-C*-* ,i:gXIij^ .V ej:;o.QW £>itJ3 ,(Xe^ ,v)Ci>) ex* .TjA dOS ^n^^pat, ^ y notto^ 

.XdfVS .q- .Vc»..i ;■ . ,:or 

Ijevioa a-? 5!!*w aitsii:^ a-xotiw ,83* *XXI St?; .^ sano a ,y •- 

-ai s iu Jil.JivJili SiU Josd'oiq: oJ' r ■■^ XXld ■ 

otf gciii)a©^ i?aoi«ftf 9'ti.l tn 'x.o a#c .•» 9A3 ci 

©iiaitf ♦«* JSatfaAaoTQ ai ^8^«voi*hoc on saAs 

1 sai;;© 

i liaaa ■^as 

'... viii XlO'Ta£>& 

'■;'-!J9i!| on aJt 


onfioO' ftn. 



U^Oat^s if. HaKOD.^ and MAHTIjts II, ) 

KSfciMMiY, Trustees ieDX Consamers ) 

Company, ) 


T8, i OF GHlGAaO. 

CITY 0-6' CHICAOO, a Municipal ) 

Crpcration. ^^^^^^^^_ !29 0l.A. 598^ 


Plaiatili's trougiit aii diction against tne defenchint Gity of 
GSiica450 to recover #373.15, claii.-iinte ti^iat one oi tiieir eiaployeea 
kad been injured JhoTeiStber 14, 1934, in tJie course ol hie employment, 
througii tne negligence oi defendant Oity; tliat ta&s nad paid the 
employee cornpenBatien under tJae Workmen's Coiutpensation act. De- 
fendant denied liability, there vas a jury trial and a verdict and 
judgjaent in plaintift 'e favor for #362.85, and the City appeals. 

Defendant contends that the judgment is wrong and should "be 
reversed because plaintiffs failed to give notice to ttie defendant 
as required lay par, 7, cnap, ?o, 111. State -bar State. 1935, 'Ihat 
paragraph provides that any person who is about to bring a suit 
against tue City for damages on account of personal injuries lihall 
"within six laontns from tne date of injury, or ^hem the cause of 
aetien accrued, either by himself, agent or attorney, file in the 
office of the city attorney *** and also in the office of the city 
clerk a stateuient in writing, signed by such person, his agent or 
attorney," etc. 

The only proof in tne record as to cue t/iving of such notice 
is that on iioveuber 26, 19M, plain tiffs' aasiscairt secretary wrote 
a letter to the Giiy Attorney of Chicago in which it was stated tiriat 
about two o'clock of November 14, 1934, one of its employees was 
Injured by falling througia an open hole in the floor of the City's 


.Oi)AaiH0 'a 

■'3 (^ G eA.I OSS ( AiiMLinti^i 

^aei!>rt9'X9|> s^y; 9t aotl^oa cvi^^ v j; t^jToiftX^ «ei:)«s«<i J)e8i»v3% 

lijiiifi «»iiiJtni XsHoatecL lo cTm/ooo* no e©g«awst< itol ij4l0 ftiii ;t8«i«ijjB 

Xil'- '' I-- '^ •■■■»■ 'HJ »iX« £;»i« •*" yiiKi-^f.-fii^. '^;Jio ■ *ii^' .''tlo 

•o- • .... - 

0JJ4S0 ixlJ 'to v»mgjra; -.i" ^acfJ'aX A 

•AW B8»^£oXgi«9 sSi 'to 9ao ,*eex , idveni '«0 xaolo' o o'^rj iuods 

• 'X*iO wl* 'to -xooX-i 9&i ai ©Xoxi aaq© cm ti%uo-id$ aailla't x^ &9^"t«i 

Electrical Departjuient at 4o5 *e3t Chicago arenue and that he -was 
reiflOTsd to tha Alexian irotaers hoepital where he was under the 
eare of Doctors Wheeler and Sinclair of 1527 Fullerton ivenue. xhe 
letter furtu^r sta.tsd Ui&t "At your convenience ^e woulvl lljfc to 
have an expreeaiou froia you as to wnether or not you are willing 
to reimburse us for txxe cobv of our medical, coffipensation, etc. , 
and also whetlier or x^ot it is feasible to place covers over these 
holes or post a wariiin^c, sign uo avoid injuries ir the future," 

Plaintiffs have not appeared here to defend the ^ludKKient, 
Section 29 of the Workmen's Compensation act (chap, 46, 111, State 
Bar Stats. 1935) provides that where an injury for ^'hich conipensa- 
tion is payable by the employer under the Act was not proximately 
caused by the negligence of the employer or his employeeB, but was 
caused un:ler circumstances creating a legal liability for daaaages 
la some person other than the ei^ployer, then the right of the eai- 
ployee to recover agaiiist such other person "shall be transferred 
to his eiaployer and sudi employer may bring legal proceedings" to 
recover the dar?iage« sustained, in an aaiount not exceertintj tlie ag- 
gregate amount of compensation payable under the Act by reason of 
th« injury. 

^» Schlitz Brewing;; Co. v. C hicag;o Rys. Co. , 307 111. 322, 

trhere a suit was under section 29 of the Workmen's Coapensa- 

tion act, agiiixiat tiie party who was liable to olaintiff 's esiployee, 

the court said (p. 327): ••we have heretofore held in/oases referred 

to that it is simply the eniployee's right of action transferred to 

the employer," 

Plaintiffs' letter addressed to the City Attorney, from 

tflaioh. w« have above quoted, was not a compliance with par. 7, chap. 

70, eveii if it coull be held to be a sufficient notice to the City 

Attorney, The statute requires that such notice be also filed in 

tii$ re' ■.;:?;•>■ iisd-lqiBOXi wt^J^^X^ mix&l.- c.s'l 

SffiXXXv »t:6 uo'{ *on rto x»tit»tir ..ox ut&t'i aoieasttix© ru- sv^ri 

» .fe*e ^cioi#»»it»q:ffl(9« ,X«»Jti)9fl» lijo i lo't air 'da'KJiJ«rsil»i 6j^ 

•sdii;)- lovo aievoo sio/iig oi aXdie^jdU ai JX Jua -xo U9;{;j'«rlw ooIjb btm 

Xl9i»^J^0Xq *oa BBw jo* siKi 'xsi.Ki) :tdY0-I^4P>* »^ T<^ »Xd'«x«* "i^ isi^it 
e«w #«tf , jSisa'ieXgai© ei ' — ■•'"-'ol^ma 9sii to 99a»hlll&in »rl* y^jT ^csiia© 

-aj« eiit 1© *fi3 11 »4^ i^clj ,-ss-^oIg*i3a .-_ nf t9iLi^o noeiaq sooe ai 

r-,-v.'X'i'-il8,iH'i^ Ftcl Iljsrle* jisjffi-if^Q it9ii;t© ii©ya jc.iJ:ij;.H£ n^voottk 0^ e^yolq 

,225 , . - .JjJ.- Aami...9A4yUiSL-4^^^ 

"fiensqKoO a ' iisfJui-xoV: joi^oaa ' sw .tloe je aisriw 

,©»>£© Xs^aa a''t't:j ''ioiit 

flSEJiSoN ' : 'J \^' ■■'■ • ©riit 

0* ft^iis'leoai* n©i.*©^ te *fiai-t a*'5©'(C6X^ia« axilj xi-i'?.-'''-' ^•d* ** 

'•■ .xexoiOfHis ©ri* 
saot'i ,^9tiioJ;r-, •x;taleX'a: 

,q£.Jo ,V .xrq rUJJtw ©OiwiXqiiioo ^'"^^-ff «W xloXriw 

the office of the City Clers and compliaxice wltli this section of 
the statute i3 a conUtion precedent to the risht to maintain tiie 
suit, Minnis t. Friend . 360 111. 323, 

Plslntil'lsh-'.ving failed to comply ^^it*-. the statute tiiey 
cannot rmintain thla suit, and the judgment oi" the Asunioipal court 
of Chicago is reversed, 

Jiatchett, i'. J., and Mobu rely, J., concur. 

'cc /io2ya;5« 9lsi:t 

itiiOQ xjaaioini. 

. ••^?>:^)5:feM 

39 339 





OI.A. 599^ 


kay 9, 1934, Clara L. Priest l"iled iier coiapiaiat in ciiancery 
against the ilaplaiis, Walk&aoerg, Jaci£.3cn, and a numlser ol' insurance 
companies, pra^ring that the several insurance companiee pay to her 
$1589.43, being the amount ol' insurance agreed upon in a lire loss 
on prejidsea owned by the ii.aplanB and on wnieh plaintiff held a 
mortgage, ffalkenberg claimed the laioney by virtue of an assignment 
of the Kaplans to him. The case was referred to a master w..o took 
the evidence, made up hie report ai^d recommended that the money be 
paid to plaintiff, A decree was entered accordingly and the iiaplans 
and falkenberg appeal. 

The record dieoloBee that the iLaplans owned an improved 
piece of real estate in Chicago, and on JDecember 15, 1926, executed 
their trust deed to the JFdreuian Trust & Savings Isanic to secure an 
indeotednesa of ^4000. The trust deed and notes were owned by 
plaintiff. The trust deed contained the usual provision for insur- 
ing the property with tne loss cl&us* payable to the trustee for 
the benefit of the holders of the ffiortgage notes. There were 8 
policies of insurance, 6 of which contained the clause payable to 
the trustee for the benefit of the holders of the notes, but 2 of 
the policies did ijot contain this clause. 

February 25, 1932, the property was destroyed by fire and 
thereafter the loss was adjusted by the insurance couipanies, they 
agreeing to pay their respective proportionate shares of the loss 

rsijoo iJaifia^^ last M.m%k 


,T8lHlH«5 .J AaAJO 

.IHUOO SET '40 aOIHI^O ai^.T CSHSiajSG HOMOO'O aoiTi. . 

sociBfusai 'to iscfis^'a « Jboir «nott3L94il' ,<^v<»6a93lid% ,6a0Xq«;A dil^ innle-gte 

eeoX eii't s al aoqu l>A9a^ asfUBii-.sai to d-auoxauB 9iit ^al^td ,fi^.985X$ 

£ AXdii Xttint&lq doiiv-r ao bac simX^A^ ftxi;^ x^ t>»nwo ••slmoiq ae 

tasiza^iaaa na to 9y3"SlT ^d x;*'*<'**' ••'~'^* fceistiai© aTCdcfasiXis'S .o^ast'XOffl 

BX^Xqa^ »il* fias %X:*i«il>iooo« fc&-i©3-a» •«» »»«to*;i . i^nXiaXn o) fel«g 

«X««>qq« S^9tf£»;^X«t JbOA 

b9ycn<s}&l OS ftsnwo aoeXqjsii aril i»di «»«oXoaXJb l>ao99^ 9x11' 

f)S*i;04»jp9 ,OSex ,ax i9Cfffi»o»cr no bos ,ojj«oiriO ni 9it«^«o Xjssi to aosiq 

OR «>ti.'09a oj iaisa: eaitxTsB aS iTauaT ncJid^A^ artf o* Jb©»Jb ;t«jua* rl9di 

X<i bfiCKO 919W 89*on ftab l)S9j> i9iiii »iiT ,000*^ 10 a«9ai»9*a9fcnl 

-ijjsni loi noiaXTOiq X*i;o;; 9X4* foeflX*4£ioo 699' .tialaLq 

lo'l 99*aiJit* 9di oi ©XdjBTtjBq tec^Xo eaoi ; - Y'^i®«<»*i<1 »^* a«^ 

8 •f9W 919^1 .«»*oa 9^ji*ioui 9xi.J to »i;*»&i.>;ii 9ri* "lo #i't9a9ef •Hi 

oi 9Xel"j3^«q 9«iJj»Xc: ii«;rnoo ii»i£lw 'xo <i ,eaiWii*j«ai to a&ioiXoq 

'to S J-JJcf ,«9iott SiU io ei9i>Xoxi ^ ■.fiensd eAi lo't so^^ewi* 9xi* 

.©aueXo sirij ni.B^'aoo dfo* fclt a9loiXoq arfi^ 
j>£u» 91 it Y'J JBO^ioiaB-jfc eaw Yiti:»qo^^ »^* ,P.65X ,3S xtssnds^ 
XStii .asioeqmoo gorusiuani ©fli X'-^ *9*isiftfc« aitsw saoX ariJ is-ftBS-setl* 
aaoX Sifcr to 89i;yria a^^aoii^o'- r- «,.h ; ....^-.i icie.^i Y«<1 o* >,fli'>etta« 


agreed upon, or §1598,43. The coaipaiiieB deciiiied to pay itrs. Priest 
for the reason that Falkenberg, an attorney, claiae'l that the B-ap- 
lans on April 30, 1932, had assigned all tneir iiii.erest in th« in- 
eurance -ioney co hiai and Wiiliaia ii, Jackson jointly, saTid taat they 
had heen notii'led hy ?alJienbsrg oi' such claim, January 14, 19 32, 
which was a little more thari a niontn hsl'ore the fire, plaintiff 
caused ^Judgment to te confessed in the Municipal court of Chicago 
on the notes against the Laplai'is for .p429G, Deceraber 5, 1932, a 
petition wae filed against Meyer Kaplan, in baJikraptcy , and after- 
ward the trustee in Taarj^ruptoy sold Kaplan's interest in the 
property to plaintiff. June 38, 1933, the "bailiff of the municipal 
court sold the property under an execution issued pursuaiit to the 
Judgiiient of the Muiiicipal court to jlaintiff for >i^20Q0, and i<ovember 
11, 19 34, the bailiff executed a deed to her. The baicUice of the 
jud£i?fient, v.'liicL -^aa more thaii the amount of the insurafice laoney, 
is still due iind unpaid. 

Defendants contend that the lien of the trust deed was sat- 
isfied SJid discharged by the itjsuaiice of the deeds, one by the 
bailiff and the other by tne trustee in bankruptcy, conveying the 
property to i^rs. Priest, taid that she could not thereafter hold a 
mortgage on her own property. We think this contention carmot be 
sustained. The insurance on the property was part of the security 
for the pay-ent of the debt, Psraus v. Willmartn . 117 111. 542. 
The property was destroyed by fiie ^'ebruary 25, 1932, At that time 
plaintiff had reduced the aruount due iier on the notes to ^judgment 
in the itunieipal court but the iBortgage still remained as seeurity 
for the payment. Darst v. Bate s. 95 111. 493. 

In Edgerton v. Young, 43 Hi. 464, it was said tiiat a 
mortgagee way procure a con-vej/aace froiu the mortgagor without in- 
tending to lixerge the lien of his iaortt,age; tuat where a greater tmd 
a less estate .aeet in the sa«ie person, a merger does not necessarily 

-qi;^ :-. , .ii»<ifl«ilaf: *«ii* acsjassi arid' To'i 

-ux 6x .' ^^x$s« iusxi ,££ej[ ,0£ Xi'xi34 no •oal 

« ,£€^X 4. - o. ..;^^t lot Q£usIq[£Ji e^ j-3X(l£S£ ssd'on axlj' no 

i««jteiijiii-i 5. . - i ■ ■ f . - ^^ 

•jit :ie stOiiMla^ pip:^ Vl^Ji. oi bB9J^ ti baiisstsxe XitllM^ eitjT ,^C<?X ^£L 

Xisrku9»a 9iii l6 ii^q etavn ij^Jiaqo'sq *4W m ^xtoAtusai eiiT ^b^aisi^iie 

.S^a ."■^' rix .4J- xj;uaXx4 W .v (Bf.;Mi«^ .;r#£i 9£ii 'Xq ta9^jix&% •■rf^ ^«'i 

.££•* ,XXI 3 Si , 3^d£lf .V JTa-i^Cl .*fls>iji\«sq. »flJ 'lo't 

follow, That will depend on the Intent and the irste?.*s»t oi' the 
parties, and if a court perceives it is Xieceesary to tixe ends oi 
JuBtice that the two estates should be itept alive, it will so 
treat them.*' See also MusOacia v. iacheel . Bl 111. 261; hooaer v . 
Goldstein . 336 111. 125. 

In Lowjian v. Lowmsua . 113 111. 5ci2, it was hej.d tuat although 
the parties may have unaertakeii to discharge a mortgage upon the 
uniting of the estates of the mortgagor and the Biortgagee in the 
latter, the mortgage will still oe upiieid, ii* equity, when it is 
for tne test interest oi the aiortfeagae, by reasoii oi' soiue interven- 
ing title or iiicuBibraiice, txiat it should not be regarded as mertied; 
and in such case it vrill be presumed tnat the i&ortgagee must have 
intended to keep the mortgage alive, when it is essential to his 
security against sui intervening title or incumbrance. 

In the instant case the indebtedriass was not aalf 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, if'alkenberg and Jackson, by the a8&i^m!i.ent of the .Kaplans of 
their claim to tlie insurance money, could not obtain any niore inter- 
est in the insurance money than the iiaplans had* When the assigii- 
ment was made, plaintiff's judiiiaent in the Municipal court was wnolly 
unpaid. Ihe insurance money was a part of her security and we think 
it obvious tuat she was entitled to be paid in full before the 
Kaplaiis or i'alkenberg and Jackson could have any interest in the 
iaeurauo* money. 

'ilae decree of the Superior court of Cook county is affiraied, 

Matchett, P. J., and MoOurely, J., concur. 

tm ii: -rilji iq&A ^-i biisodM eai&Ss - d^ soilatft 

. y x^noou ;ii..i .1X1 18 . j^sxiaa,. ..,? 4.»«tf9tf£ oai.- , ^a«* 

.■'■'SX ,1x1 3££ . ai.gjrs;.iXofl 
rf^fc'ortJXjs i'^iia' bu.«si a,.,- ^ . i; ,i:4iQ ,1XX 8xX . fi i^ e-iAi w o >£ ^ y^ , ^ffl . ^^S -i -'-^ 

at il ii»iiw ^ijiXupa nX ,fcX«iiqM *rf XXi;^s XXiw »ai&a#noa idt ^in^iMt 

;Ma'x«ac »« jbahais^si 9tf ;^oa ^Xiio^ia ;i j'«xi;^ ^»oi^*i.Sauiaai to slirli gill' 

9VH4 tsiTiA »93£g.ttaa: AxiJ^ tail;}' jjdnueo'xq scf XXiw St sratQ iiou9 at bam 

sXrl oi Xalcriisaee si il uad^- .oriX^ 9^«;^^'X0JO ^dS qsesl o^ .^d&as^fll 

\XXii't ejsw aasixJba^cTsfiaX i^ixi liiau svlX^ aaxX laa g9«<>ji oi bsbtiiiiiiX aifa 

lo aiiAXq*^ «sii 'lo ia^mtif^teaA 9iii ^d' «noeflsat bajt ^teifasiiltt'^ .i^lje^ 

-rid^ai SI cm x^^b uxjBcfcfo 3©a JbXioo ,\;daofii aoi-miUBai. axiJ oi- mljsXo xl9di 

'O^iBSA oM udiiW .Juail anfiXq£ii axit xuxl^ ^aaooi ados'xijaai @xii nl is» 

\riXoiiw a«w .tixjoo Xj&qioiai/ia arf* ax ;>-a9iiiaJi>JJt »*^'*i*^ii*-t<l ,$&«fli a«ii' itiiaa 

IrjtxiJ a-v kae, ^SiiiJO«a iftii to i^Xfiq A ««w \;©ftow aauusiuaai aiiX ,fcl««atf 

»iU «itol«d XXi/t «X bisiq, ©€f 0* IwXiX^Tiis. a^sw t,iia imtii ai/airtfo ^i 

•riif iti ^^aaisJ-nX \;ci« #v«rf fcXjyoo eioai&at. fcrta a't*{ffleitX*'& "xo sofiXqaii 

,iiiO«oo , .1i j^tiB-xjyiioiii 5 • <. .i ,;f*9i{oit«ll 


S, C. [TecJdy] G20B(S5» for use 
a corporation! 

Appellee f 

a oorporatlonf 

Appellant ( 



I.A. 599 



i5au;viSRjjD ths o^mkm w thb comiT. 

ITovember 15 » 1935, Claude Meon Pederal Company, a cor- 
pdration, eaused a judgment by confession for $797»27 to T&e 
entered in the munioipal court against S» C» [Tsday] Qeorge. 
Ifoeeution was issued iifoveniber 18, 1935, and thereafter returned 
"no property found." Garnishmeat proceedings were instituted 
December 17, 1935, and December 13, 1935, the Fox Head Restaurant 
Company was served with summons as garnishee. A copy of a "demand 
in OTiting," which had been served upon George and the garnishee 
Deoeaber 13, 1935, and which notified the employer to pay plain- 
tiff the amoTiiit of its judgment "out of moneys due, or which may 
become due to 3» C. [Teddy] George as wages or salary in excess 
of the amoimt exempted, if any," was attached to and made part of 
plaintiff's statement of claim. Interrogatories were filed v,lth 
said statement of claim and on the return day, January 6, X936| 
by lea*-* of court additional interrogatories were filed. The gar- 
nishee filed answers to such interrogatories and the matter oame 
on for hearing upon the motion of plaintiff for a judgment against 
the garnishee on admissions claimed to be contained in its said 



jLtiirrxiTi w:n i\^i.ij\ 

too .8 

Q ^ G .A.i Q ^ J ..c^nslXoci^. 

#f£s«j«SaoH: fe^9fH SCO'S iiriijj' .fiS^i: ,6X •xn<f0j,ooe<X ba& «eeCX t'5'I 'zsctosoafl. 

-Cijslq: '(tcq 0^ n^VioXqiao «rf* baill^oH jcJoiriw Sr« «e£C'X ,^;X -ss^riasosa 

riu&ojco at xxiils^e ie assew ajs 9sios)0 [ic?>&»'^ < ••«& acioosrf 

lio i%k% 9hMi b: Ao&H* BMW ".^onjs li ^fco^ijKiajcs iauoBui 9tii tb 

&UiiO 'i^ii\ki& ©ii^' ttwa B9i:no*fi80'3:t9*ni ;>*£«« 56X11 ee^ete 

answers. Tlaere v/as a trial without a jury, resulting in the oo]irt 
finding the issues against tiae garnishee and that it owed plain- 
tiff #175. Judgment in that sum was entered against it April 7» 
1936 > and the present appeal was perfected* 

The garnishee in its answer to the original interrogatories 
stated that e.t the time of the aervice "of the iTrit 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, choses la 
action, credits or effects oTmed by or due to said 71, 0, [Teddy] 
George," but "on the contrary debtor was indebted to the garnishee 
on 3)ec. 15, 1935, in the sum of $2no and on Dec. 31st in the num 
of $275 •" In its ansv^er to the additional interrogatories the 
garnishee stated that George was its manager and that "as salary 
or other renumeration" he reoeired "on the basis of Fifty Dollars 
per week, payable on drawings or othenflisej" and that between the 
date of the demand in garniahraent on December 13, 1935, and the 
filing of its answer it paid CSeorge "One Hundred Seventy FiTe 
Dollars as advances." 

It sufficiently appears from the service of the formal 
wage demand that the Claude iJeon i'ederal Company, at and prior to 
the time it instituted this garnishment proceeding, treated George 
as an employee of the T'ox Head Restaurant Company and as p. wage 
earner who '^as the head of a faTnlly residing with the ssme and 
therefore entitled to an exeniption of #20 a week as provided in 
sec. 14 of the Garnishment act. (111. -tate Bar Ctats., 1935, 
ch. 62.) HoT.'cver, the amounts sggregating '"^175 received by George 
"as advances" nexe not paid to him as v/ngee or salary earned v/ithin 
the contemplation of t,hc provisionc of said sec. 14, but ac stated 
in the garnishee's brief "the judgment debtor [George] having con- 
trol of the ftinds of the employer, without the knowledge or per- 
mission of the employer advanced himself moneys in excess of any 

-ni^Iq bewo Ai iMi baa bbAb iatBSi exW istilA^& adjEteel ssit i^albait 
itbatos'i'i.eq^ aiaw X£«gq£; ineastq osii bcua id£?X 

*oa bib bti^ sjioaO ©;* &»*<r9&rcJ: ion ?.r ^ nrf3 sonie 10 ©buso 

ni a»B©rl3 «s^»«OHi -vjoe" Xoi^noo xo ;;:;;■:;"■. ,;■:}.:■.-;:.;,;;. a aoq a^-i ni erjsrf 

(WJrfaifncBg eri^ Dd beiiS&bal Eijsf ^01*^96 •^r.i.+noo sri^f iso" Jwcf ".ss^osD 
aa/ti srfcf Gi sfaX5 «o»c: xio 6^ 00&| 1© eiae ©fi;? £ti ^cJTCI , "I .oacr no 

9x1^ bn& «SS€X «CX xs^do^Ct aai inamdeidxari^ ai basaab 0iii lo 9ie,h 
•tH ■^♦hstsK boibxsMil sfflBD" er^x&aK) bluq, il rrowana a;tl to Qtitlll 

".aeojxBVfcjB afi aiaXXoa 

oi toitq feflj3 rf.a ,xfi-'5qnfoO XiStafesf aoau sbt/Bltii mUtt ij&iiS bttBotab f^BW 
feiitt ssLm 9ri* ff#lw ^iirl6iiy3i>Xlm<?l • Jt) •'■*?»«!if #*{* orfw «r*ityit«9 

tiidiiv: bsirzas x^--''- JsoftcrbB ««" 

i>®*e*3 ais #)arcf , . noiaivo-xq arf;? l© «a>ll«Xqisfi:>;fnec> tafi 

-rs9q 10 f^sbeXwonjt sxfi iuodilvf ^t&xolqii^ ad* lo a&«&/t 9di \o loi;i 
Xae, to aa9ttx» ai axatiom tloaahi ba^aarba -zaxolqiaa 9iii to misaim 

salaries or other remuneration due him at any time," and, there- 
fore, no queEtion of the statutory exemption can he involved in 
this cause. The garnishee was suBHaoned to answer as to all of 
the estate or effects of the judgment de"btor in Its possession 
or custody and no sound reason is advanced as to why service of 
the wage demand shotild in any manner limit the garnishee's right 
to recover on any indebtedness due from the garnishee to its employee. 

After plaintiff's cotansel at the outset of the hearing of 
this cause asked that judgment Tie entered against the gsmishee on 
the admission in its answer to the interrogatories that it paid 
George $175 after the service of the suHmons in garnishment upon it 
and prior to the filing of Its answer # Mr* Benjamin Mesirow* who 
is the president of the garnishee corporation as well as its attorneyi 
made the following statement as to the employment of George, his 
salary and the financial relations that existed "between him and his 

"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 hy the employe, so that at all times since his 
employment "by the corporation the corporation was a creditor 
instead of a debtor -- *** The employe entered our employ as 
manager on Hovember 17th, 1935. As such, he has power of dis- 
position of all of the receipts of the restaurant thnt are 
taken in; he pays all the help, including himself, his salary of 
$50 a week. 7vhen the garnishment summons was served, he turned 
over to me all the records. I inspected the records and found 
he had overdrawn his account. He explained to me that he had 
moved from v^aiikegan, when he got employment here, he moved dovm 
here and he needed some funds . He wanted to know whether that 
waa 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 aro 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 is» 
he did take money; we didn't pay t^ia ^oj^ta^ily' J^* J® f**S ^*' 
and he did it by authority, because he has complete charge." 

The parties then stipul&ted as follows! 

a- ij«vl0Tfii scf JU3P mXiiifa»X9 xxoiuia: '> amiir... k, ^ 

lo Ilf' :sw8f«8 ©^ &e£ioasEu;« a«vi' aaxlaiinfia 011"' t9ai;:,;c) airi;^ 

to ooiVTCQO ■^f'''- leooBVbr, ax noa«ai bawoa oa Ito* 'XEfco^i^ifo 'to 

CEO ©e^aliirrjs^ ®iW' ;?8ni£as baieins acf' ^naiajsbu}. iMsii baalajB e8»;»o aM* 
himq, ti iadS nai.ioi&'Q^'xf^at lii mi inwawt ail al oolaaiasbB eti^ 

oilw fWeaxeaM nliiietJX»£ •'tiff «^£)WB£l@ e:^l lo ^ailll exf;^ 9$ leitq bos 

t^^tKjcxo;^^^ a#Jt o& XXsw bjs ito^d-isxe^ttoo 9«ii«±mii^ »tii to ^{xarblaa^q aifi al 

alfi «ea%09v lo ^£ti3»arY;oXqiia3 sii^}^ o;t ajs ;>a8a9#;a;ta lAjtwelXot syrl^ sbASt 

bM basi m.M. naew^stf boj}^!:^^^ ietdt utmlisl^i laloeuutil aAi btut ^j6X«a 

to K^osl ©rfj od- as bfliffl a*;tru;oO sii.J ax woxcfasijp x^"^ •''-i a^orij 11 

-3i» lo i»woq anrC ed (doiia aA t?!,^.Ql ^Ai'^L i8«fftTSvofe ik* -iu*:'. it ;• 
91J3 ;f/^^ .^K.Eim.ed'aen ^Ai lo e^fql'^o')*? ©d^ lo XX^*. te aol:' '. n 
to z'^bS^'M alii iHeiasalst ixal'oul'jnt <■ -i Lie a^sq arf 5 ni .. 

b&utiJi asi f b.^'^ijcee aijw enomsuB #t>^ . ^ eii^f «aiii« •:jf9»iy . 

b.«xl ^ti iaiii ©IS o# bsciiaXqKa sH .#«wooo>> bIpC n\s?*ti;b'xovo bsxf sxt 
flfi'ob bo^'Ofii af£ teiQxf .■ ;tj ;to;'i o/i : •. - «oTt bsvoat 

i:-" - .^^.-- . ...-.j._ ..... ^.,.„ ^j..K, to 150.J. u X =i.;H j.i.. iiiij ^iJi; (; ^ u'jy 

.wtNH Bv. ei eri ,-.: . , .,, ^...,, ^^ 

«3WoXlol 30. b9iMif{TtiP. rtisait aeij-^iaq 


"Mr. oimpsion! .tfov/, of your Honor please, that is all 
■well and gond t rmd I 'believe we can etipi'-late, according to 
counsel's statement that the "books and records of the company, 
regardless of whether the man drew the money or wae paid the 
money, show that he receired, after the date of the notice* 
&175 up to the date the answer was filed. Is that correct^ 
counsel — as advances? 

"Mr. Mesirowj Yes» as advances on his salary, or credits, 
loans, vdaatever you ^rant to call it» 

"Mr. Simpson: That is understood, as advances according 
to the amswerc w© will also stipulate that at the time of the 
service of notice of garnishment ui^on the garnishee and tit the 
present time, there was and is due from the original defendant 
to the garnishee a sum in excess of that." 

The principal question presented for our determination is 
whether, even though the IndeTotedness of George, the original 
judgment dehtor, to hie 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 rjiswer, the payment of such advances constituted an admission 
of indehtedness to the eiaployee lay said garnishee. 

In Baird v. Luse-titevenson , 262 111* App. 547, where the 

facts were almoat identical ^ the facts here and where the same 

questions were involved, this court la its opinion ^vritten hy Justice 

Grldley said at pp. 548-49-50: 

"The cause was tried on a stipulation of facte as follows s 
"'That the "books and records of the garnishee disclose that 
"between the service of notice of garnishment upon the garnishee and 
the filing of the answer, the sum of ^';530 was paid to the original 
defendant [Baird] a s an ad van ce or drawing accouji t against future 
commissions to he earned "by him| that at the time of the service 
of notice of garnishment upon thp r^rnishoe anci at the pr^iRent time 
there was and is due from the original defendant tBairdJ to the 
g:arnishee a sum in e.?:cess of '*!'4,000, for moneys advanced in the 
past to apply against comiaissioas earned and to be earned "by said 
original defendant in the employ of the garnishee.* 

••*** Although it is the law in this State that a judgmeait 
creditor can only recover from the garnishee that which the judgment 
de"btor could have r ecovered in an action of assumpsit or debt 
brought by him against the garnishee ( Swope v. McClure , 239 111. 
App. 578, 581; ebster v. Steele, 75 111. 544, 546); and although 
it is provided in substance in section 13 of our Garnishment Act, 
Cahill's St. Ch. 62, par. 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 v/e under- 
stand it, it is also ttxe law tha.t the payment of money by the gar- 

« iMiatiiaD ©lid' I0 ebzfit>B% has aaCoorf ©xicf ^iui^f irmataifiis a'Isamfoo 
»££;> t)iaq aisv; -so \: .■ . -. -. 

»£[;*■ lio eKJ:J »r(;5 isi fsiiii eijaluqliB osls lliw sil . lev, acix:, siirf o* 

a£i* .i« bite oarialftiBg oxij aoqti i itajmicliite:^ lo soicfoxj I0 soivtcsa 

&stBbsi&'t&b Xfsni:jsi'W3 oxl^ acoil tub al bfis aaw sterf* «!?jsi;f ,Jxioa©tq 

».Saf£j' lo ©89SXO Hi muB s soriein'ifjr! »''-* o;t 

iiuaissnuiab luo ^ol bsJnsa-srcq aoliBeifp JteijloKitq siJT 

i}ii.'-ii ': ^rf^ 6«8 *i noqu *nsfflt£Biai/4S «-^ auofamua axli lo soiTTPie 3rf;t "to 

iioi<^'sJiKbj3 as beiuiXianoD a90tmrbfi doise 'to :ta9mcBq ^tii «aev/«n^ mit to 

joarfaiw'ijsjg bi^s •\jtf ooxolqiSi» odi oi aa9a&«;J<f9bnJ: lo 

mdi fcaariviT ,v^e »qqA «XXI SdS ^noamre t'ti-'»Btt4, •▼ btte g nl 

eousa erf* SMfiiiw fcuB ©^.ed a^.vrt srfj i!£;jJt«? iKoJtSnsbi #^©ihXc &%sm a^cfil 

tswollol Q« a^ojal ^o fioi^Blifgi;^ :; 

Xaxiisiio 9di ©i i' ■ 
©oJtTf^s ori5 1o~" 
ei£* 0* ' ■ " 

• IXI Q(^,):' T " ; eirt v/J' ■*' ' '"" "'^ 

«*a.. inr.i, .._ .. .... , :.,„ _: baftlvo....^ ...... . .. 

a©-!!: oui) Yanom aJ: ot(isi;t ataiiw jjaaigT *<SX •oa^ «SS •rfO •;fti 8»lXJtii«0 

-lethtw 9W aj8 tii©X tS^t^tiboooocctj iaBmS.a.Un.n-i'i urii al icujoum tfdi tTco is© 

■ X ;-; • 



• r ,M,-{'J'" 

£?■••? 0?r*! 


0.r .; 


niahse to M^j eraployee jud^ent delator 'betweea the bxate o£ tlas 
BexTlcQ of a summons upoa hiia aB garnishee and the filing of 
his answer in the garnishEierit proceedings i s an adiHi g £' i on. p;^ .,., 
indebtedaBsa to the enploye-. by said garnieEet. ***' in i^a.isi ey _ 
|ar gag, of Hooper v. P &.rk rireproo f ptorg.g e Oo »» 2Ji2 Ill# App» 
96, ti oaoe decided hy this division of the Apjjellate Court for 
the first district, it appears that Hooper recoTered a judgraont 
againsst Pixislcy for acout "ISf; that fef ter an e:r:ecution had hecn 
returned unsatisfied, gaiTiishraent proceedings were Gomajeiaeed ag"iinBt 
the Storage Co. on May 3, 1930; that its answer, 'no fiiudB," is/as 
contested; tht.t on the trip.l the evidence disclosed thai I'aisley 
was aii employes of the ^'"^^ishee at ti salary or Tfifage of |.41 per 
week, that after the gai'nishee hp,d heen served with proctss it 
paid to i^ai2l-y (.judjjment debtor) ^41 on May 11, 1920, and $41 on 
May 13, IS 20, that at the time of the serrice of Biiijaaeris upon the 
garnishee raisley was indebted to it upon hia demand note for |300, 
dated :'"e'bruaxy 21, 192), v/hioh aua had been advanoa d to ixlm, and 
that the garnishee was the holder of the note and lh& entire aiioxuit 
thereof was payable to i!; at tha time it was served with the gar- 
nishee suffiKions . The trial court found that the garnishee was in- 
deistec to faialey (judgment debtor) in the siaa of '18£, ariiil sntsred 
judemenc in tliat Bum against it. In affirming the judgment this 
court, after stating that appellant (the garnishee) rtlied upon 
Becticnc 13 aiid 24 of the ^TFrnishment iwst, Cahill's -t,, ch« 62p 
Pars* 13 and 24, said (pp* 93, 9&) t 

"♦Wc are of the opinion that upon service of gamiahEient 
process the garnishee had the right to adjuat the account between 
itself and the judgment debtor and apply the ia/«iount due Paisley for 
salary on Ms nota for ?t300, in ccaaforiaity vrith these provisions of 
the statute. Qbergfell y» Booth, 213 111* App» 492* The garnishee 
did not see fit to 6o bo, but after service of garnishment process 
paid Paisley $82, and in so doing adiaitted an indebtedness to that 
amount. vilouB ▼. Idling , 87 111. 107»* 

"In Huds on for uoe of Topp v# H udson Motor Go *, 238 111* 
App* 391, a case decided by another division ~6f tlnis court, the 
holdings in the ^iljus and aial ey cases, supra , were followed, the 
court saying (p. 394) s 

"'Under seotion 13, ch» 62, of the Gamishnient Act, *-^* 
the garnishee had the ritht, upon s-rvice of gc.rnishment process, 
to deduct fTom Hudson's salary, as it vms or came due, what he 
owed, bat it could not refrain froa acjunting the aocouat and go 
on p yint, his salary for years, ajad so simply by so doing, evade 
ttnd avoid its statutory oblige ti on .'" 

In Burke v. Congress Hotel Co_ *, 230 111. App* 495, where 

the employee judgment debtor was indebted to his fmployer jtarnishee 

and without setting off the indebtedness due it from such employee 

the garnishee paid Mm Ms full uionthly salary after being served 

with KUBUiions as garnishee, this court in its opinion written by 

Justice i'rieud, after discussing Baird v. Lua e -i: - 1 evens on , gupra , 

and most of the authorities quoted and cited therein said at pp# 

498-99 J 


Bdi lo cjM! :i ?■■'-: i nj»i»iP7?r'r' T'-^ 

c &rie in 




■,^.X no .Ov 


K^ no ^x^tU 


'^f> ii •• f>i^ &-■ a J5 lo,e©j:-n:9Q 

'lo'i j'Xuo>..' sajaiisy,(3,^^ 9/'. 

biiB t'airi ess nos«f IM isu/a ri:cxiiv; ,iS«?I «Iii ^'^J^'^rfc'^ badab 

.;.;'■..: :■;'.;:. .':u I'-j-'sioii edi 'to tfibtoti odi bbv - '. ' :■.■':■ 

- . bs-noa GRd' SX essii o4^ ^-c di Oi . 

-■r: mii ie,di hnsjol iruoo r "- :' . 

^sa »f(o «.-*■; ' ' ..'»' cf rrsKtflB i;. .. .;.,.] 1© frS ftixs 51 b«ox*o©8 

l;o ru«.)isjiTO*:i::.; .wj-'j;.',t iidrjtv; ■^;»iaixolxjoo ni ,t-0<';:'' ■-ol; :^cfcn eiri ao \;xB.Cjie 
s©i£ai;n«5j.; »ciqA « III 8It , "': ^aiui&ie. fsili 

oas^frcq 4fu ;■£>^Jtviea ?-.', 5 ■<■ ,filE asa don fcxb 

#«x(j tti saonfeeiQ'sbxil «s l>9*;ttetl>js ^nxob oa ai musj ^SSl '^jeXaisSi biaq 

.XII 8^ t.oD Tpj;eK Jti.Qafa»H ♦v jto^oj^ to s?»rr .•ro'v n.T" ■ 

mii ^i'lisoo Bhii"To~ xiclalrlh 'v - - -• : 
srii ihBMolLo'i ansv; ] ^^^i:£<^iia ,a©af,o \; 

* U'^-c .q; aniiciifi a\;xoo 
-'■ ' i-JuA ;Jasmilslflrc.eiJ sri.^ ^t^ «S9 ,xf£> «SX fioXtosa TC?bxiU'" 

Jaxivy ,sx;b ;. <'?: ,^8X?;e a'coetiiiH moTl ioubob oi 

vcijs ■o.t;^!- •,:•:.•;■.; ■ y;;,.'o mcxT: nixjt'ie'x ioa f;Xueo :Jx ji: ,' ,' 
OB x^ xI<:!p1^ oe bixe «s'x<5»T 10 1 YXuX^^a aM 3/: 

«*'XtiiS.. »...%«• .>i,i-.. ..1.AJ1. .vuvx ii «'>v ^ 3^,oH ., ga-;.'; i.^..-at^->.^ ,V ^i«eA^ aui 

ao\:oXqra8 rfoua aoil Ji ewb aa©jttb9#rf0J&«l sxfct 11<o ^ialsiae iuodilv bos 

ftsinr'is ■^^n.^otf fititA XtntAn ztfiirthm tWy. sts! mtd biuiH e.>xitiiax;.5i &£ii 
ivaiint^c . ■ , < . . ; .:;*x^/ 

"¥e regs.rd these cases as ctaatrollin,^, The garnishee 
armies that because Burie's i;o it exceeded the 
amount due Burke on the date of the garnishee suimnons, it had 
the right under the atatute to set off the •?momit of the indeVit- 
edness ircra Burke against wh-at it oii/ed him, ^vithout actually 
makin:T the adjustment cont«niplated by statute; that ths rights of 
the pax ties are to be determined as of that date; and that the 
subsequent payment of }5urke'6 salary for July» during the psnd'^noy 
of buit» i& ioffiiaterial* This poBition id untenable, ivni ia not 
sv:sty.ined by the authorities. The statutory provision i,s intended 
to protect a garniahee against debts rfliich may be due from the 
judgment debtor, but, in order to avail its?!lf of the ot?tutory 
provision, garnishee must the adjustment when nobifitd of 
the garaishmant proceeding, pxxd cannot thereafter pc.y to the 
judgment debtor the aj.iount adaiitted to be due Mm aac still roly 
upon the statutory prott?ction. Had the garnishee in fhe instant 
case retained or deducted the sum duo Burke from the amouiit that 
Burke owed it -ifchen the garnishment eummon^ va3 t-rved, it could 
have availed itself of the statutory provision, but in paying 
Burke his salary after answer and during the pendancy of the suit 
it admitted its debt to Burke and lost the right vnhich the 
statute affords." 

In the instant case the garnishee, Pox Heed Restaurant 
CoBpany* clearly had the right under sec. 13 of the (Jarnishment 
act to Bet off the indebtedness of George to it a^^ainst a^aoh amounts 
if any, due George from said garnishee, "but when it paid loim 0175 
"as advances" after it had "been served v/ith euiamons in garnishment 
and "before it hnd filed its answer wJ.thout adjuetiag its dem?mds 
against him, undf>r the established rule in this state the garnishee 
admitted rn indebtedness to its employee and loat its rif^t under 
the statute to assert such demands. The ccntention of the garnishee 
that it should be absolved from liability to the garnishor because 
George helped himself to hie employer's funds is without mt'rit in 
view of the testimony of Mr. Mestrow, the proBid^nt of '.m6 attorney 
for the garnishee, that George had full authority to d rav/ or advanoe 
to hiffiRolf such funds and his conduct in do doing ie just as binding 
upon the Fox Head Restaurant Company, his employer, as if the v.6- 
vanceB were paid to hiia by some officer of the corporation authorized 
to do so. 

It is aleo contended that the trial court erred in refusing 
to permit the garnishee to file a supplemental answer to plaintiff's 


: erf OS '.i'.T.a H^J 

Qi : BMT 


;:.iii'x«a J3 ;f& 

<»prfs9iixxe<R oif , ."Gf^ffos 8^^ Bnanr) oaarid Mjc^^rr ^W 

■Jo ajfrl^is ©Mi in-jii , 

9»ii9iint&^ Qj^ [t^'Wt}a9imt' -Tir?" tsbh^^^^^ dons .tta.^n; ;.;.+ji;f3 »ff^ 

ssiii.. -■/.■tiTorl^WB XXiil 6j8|J o;;;'ic;r! :? ;^r{;; , ; r-rr^ 9di •x.q'l 

~bj5 erf* ':.. c '^-sjoXq'Tf!? aM tXH-'^wcO tf«ii3^wa,ta»f:f b^aH ^rof »rit ijoqw 

^tsXsiisli^i fsl b»tr9 ^xuao L» 9tit $.9di f)©&H©*«Q;. r JI 


interrogatories. It is sufficient ans?;pr to thiB contention to 
stats that at the couGluaion oi the hearxng of tMs case on 
March 26* 1936, the trial court indicated that its decision 
would "ots adrax&e to the garnishee and it ^tui^ only upon the 
latter 't3 insjibtciice that a continuance be grajiited for the sole 
purpose of suhfliitting "briefs that the court postponed the matter 
for a week until April 1, 1&36. e think there v/aB no ahusc of 
discretion in the court*e refusal to allow the filinj of the 
supplemental axisv^er* 

we are of the opinion that the judgment of the muni d. pal 
court was properly entered and it is therefore affirmed* 

Friend and Scanlan, JJ., conoxxr* 



PAUL 13. QLSOM et al., 
(oomplalnants and cross 

dcfendantB "balow^, 

Appellants > 

▼ • 

WILLIAM J» BURlSrs et al«» 
(defendE'JEitB and cross 
complainants below) p 



290I.A. 599 


This is an appeal "by plaintiffs, Paul ■^. Oluon and Ediaund 
E* Swansony and defendants » 0« M. Z,eis Lvtzaber Company and William 
T. Franklin and iJlloert I^ykemai copartners » doing buBiness &q the 
Normal Glass Company* from a decree in favor of the defendants » 
¥illlam J. Biorns and Margaret H. Burns » tair> wife» which overruled 
the master's report, dismissed plaintiffs' liill of complaint and 
the answers in the nature of inteTTenin,^ petitions of the said 
0. M. 2eis Lumber Company and \i/illiara T. Franklin and Albert Dykemaj 
copartners, doing business as the Mormal Glass Company, to foreclose 
their meohmios* liens, and sustained the cross bill filed by th9 
said defendants, \"illiam J. Burns and Margaret R. Burns, to confirm 
their title in and to the premises involred and to remove the said 
mechanics' lien claims and certain other instruments as clouds upon 
the title of said afilliam J. and Ifcargaret S. Burns (hereinafter for 
oonvenienoe sometimes referred to as the defendants). 

The bill of complaint was filed ISarch 6* 1930, by plaintiffs" 
assignor, Olson & Swanson Construction Oompanyj and alleged in sub- 


s .A.I e § 

aao'xo bits Krf: o-o) 

330'xo baa ri}anbns>'i'3b) 
« (wolf, rf a^neniflXqaioo 

♦THUob ^T iv., , .. 

baXwiiovo xfoMi*' tslxv/ aiif tamcirtl •H tfaxjeai-isjal boss Qciwff .1, MsiXIJti? 
fma ittiiilqmoo "io IXicf "atlUfti^Iq bsaajjscaib tiroqBi e'^tsjajsja oil* 

«BBJs::£'V^i: JtsqX'^. F^fti ciXaCnjB'x'C .T iaailXift' btm xernqsaoO isefsa/J. aioii *M .0 

saoXoatro'i oi ^YXieqiaoO aa^U) Leaxoil &iii aa aaexiiai/ef BClob ^areitvi'mqoo 

edi x<f b;-iXi:'i IXirf uao7.o oiii boniB^taus bnc usnslX *-5i>i«aifb«M ilari# 

uncilnoo o* « aniuS *K JaissctBJC bits anrtwa . T, weiXXi''/ «8*«>lab bi^e 

bir>e 9Xl;t «vora«T o* bnjB bavXovni ssaimarcq ail* oi btm ai ©X^Jt^J il&di 

noq:i/ BftiToXo ax5 a^Homrt^Bni lerf^o mi^ijfiioo bit* aaiii^Xo naiX 'aoJuKerfoaa 

• (B^nsbno'iofo ©ifi am ©g- b»Ti9l:sT aaEii^^atoa oojia iixsir «oo 

"sTlxjii^ j-H ^u tOeeX «8 i£oiJssM baXTx ajaw rf«±fiXqaroo lo XXlrf erPI 


Btance that the defendants and T.llliam A. Andsrscn and others, 
were the ovmero of the vaoajit real estate at 3142 Lafayette avenue » 
Chicago; that tinder a written contract with .ixidexBoa "authorized» 
consented to and loiowingly permitted" hy iiaid. defendants, plaintiff 
furnished and delivered the labor and material iiecesBary for the 
completion of the excavation, f oiiadation aad laaconry of a bungalow 
on said real estate for the agreed price of $lp575» none of v/hioh 
had been paid; thr,t a statemeiit of claim for mechanics' lien for 
$1,540 was properly filed j and prayed that lien therefor be decreed 
and enforced against such property and the improvements lihereon 
under the statute. 

The intervening petitioners, named as defendants in the bill 
of complaint, appeared and filed answers in the nature of interven- 
ing petitions to foreclose their respectlre mechanics' lieny on the 
Bame real estate. The Zeis Company' d petition alleged that under a 
■written contract with Anderson, "vrtth the authority* ^aicledge and 
permission" of uiliiaai J. and MK,re:aret E. Burns, it had furnished 
lumber and building material of the value of $728«41 for the con- 
atruction of said bungalowp no part of whidi had lieen paid; and that 
a statement of claim for Hen for that amount had been properly filed* 
The intervening petition of Franklin and I^kema, who furnished labor 
and material for ^^zing that went into the oonstrtiction of the 
"bungalow to the amount of $125, was to the same effect* 

Itefendants in their ansv/ers 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 intereet in caid real estate, that they authorized 
©r 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 construotlcm* 

ia-ieiiio baa xaosrtsfeHA .A aaiXUft? bsxs atasbrtstsb aiii isiii son^ia 

Ttiiaialci tsisiiibaii'i.&b hiiHi xd ''ba^tlEitQq \l-^nhf&n:i bam oi foeinaenoo 
taH wi x'-t^«aso©fi JJslisitsEi bOB cocrgl arf* boi^vllsb bus bQA&lntift 

•zo't iiiizS, 'tioxiicrfosfit rso'i mi&lo to iinsKoisiB & intii {Mjaq wsecf barf 

-cev*r9*«l 'io s^irjjsn srf;^ «i sxftVfBfsa ' 6#ii1: 6iis beiBoqciE ^itnifsXgmoo 1o 

B ^tjnw iMtt b9]^6llt} ijolil/eij a'x'isqiaoO n±»S ©iiT »o*Bjas Lcai fjcisa 

boa .^fcsXiBfOfljt «^lto.4d-x/.f^ srftt ri^Jtw" ,rfoex9l>«A rf#Xw ;fosit*ijoo jK©i#ltw 

JisjJ(?i«?ij'i i)Aii v.; t . «:>X63iijM bos .T. ««iIXi'.' lo "aolaaiiyt'iaii 

— app «il| wt JEi'.esri; l;o ©ifX^Y sirfit Ici .^«Jt^»i*j8oi jialb^XiKf bus -xecffimX 

#aiid b£{j3 {blisq n£)€»cf b3£{ £fiaJt4v to ;t%i3(a[ e^ ^wol^imtf bJt«« "l^o aoi:^£ULr-z;t& 

.bsXil \,Xi©qox<j; naocf bsfl ^xmouuB j#«Jli tol. xssiX xol laisXo lo #KaB»ijB*a a 

aotfflX beiiaXnwtf't oriw 8;a«*siiAi?I btm aXXiUxax'I 1» jxelcfi^aq 3nin9Yn»*ni ©riT 

&ii.1! £0 nox;fotf'z;rei»)o <mU •#£iJ: ^am isdi T^ils.ja4& -xol Xj3Xts>#J3m ba& 

tine'tts tiia/-.ti tifij orf k>kw «6iJXi 'to i'mfoiajs sii* oi woXtt^mrcf 

oc^ bJCKs iitt.eXqflJoo lo IXlrf oiit o;? r.-rev/aitf! txntiii ai aiaabta'^sXi 

In'.'r- 9r{^ 'to qtrfsisfwo ftXoa f)o;t*i:iaEm *3noJt;fi^©q ■pjCitn^r'isial oili 'to rioBQ 

#j3rfi b&xaob iud tbo^oBti^ neatf &«rf woIssxa/cT eri(J jdtolriw ooqji/ ad-jsJa* 

hBstio^UB "^s&i SsAi nQiBiso I'-.o'x bl.'^ni at taa^ntffli xatt bttA aoeioboA 

b&A x^i ^-erf* 10 woXe^ajifcf bijsa lo itel^swi^aBOo aai-* oial Samv iMi 

Itefendants filed a croBs Mil in which they alleged that 
they entered into a contract of sale with Anderson» in ishich they 
agreed in consideration of Si>50 earnest money to convey such real 
estate to hj.m after he paid the further sum of •'^'1»750{ that Anderson 
failed to pay that amount or ?my nart of it? that they therefore 
elected to and did declare said contract of sale null and void; that 
neither /todereon nor my other person* except thetaselyes , had any 
rieht» title or interest in said premises? that the warranty d'5ed 
to said real estate* Vihich had been placed in escrow pending 
Anderson's payment of the purchase price of the property* had never 
"been delivered to Mm; that possession of the prefaises had never 
been given to Anderson nor to any other person for himg that the 
Andersons made and caused to be recorded without right or authority 
two trust deeds conveying said real estate to secure first pnd 
second mortgage loan£< of f6»OOf5 and ^1»500» respectlvelyj that said 
trust deeds were made vdthout the knowledge or concent of defendants 
or either of them; that no moneys were ever paid ovit on either of 
said trust deeds or the notes secured \>y them; that the aforesaid 
contract of sale, the tv;o truat deeds anc^ the claims for mechanics* 
liens constituted clouds on the title of William J« and Margaret R» 
Bums to said real ej.itate; and prayed thab sam^i be removed as clouds 
upon their title. 

Thereafter the substituted plaintiffs, Paul ^j, Olson and 
Edmund s^» Svfansont filed an amendment and supplement to the original 
bill, alleging the assignment in writing to then of the original 
plaintiff's claim for mechanics' lien and praying for the same relief 
sought by said original plaintiff in its bill of complaint* 

The latr governing the issues involved in this cause is clearly 
set forth in plin v» Reinecke , 336 Tll« 530, where the court said at 
pp. 534-35 t 

XfiS^ dowa '^sTixoo oi r^enoa iB9sxxB9 OS* lo aoiisitBbXQSieo a,i beeigB 
nonia&aA $nA^ %OdVtX$ "So awe Tf)xl*'.txjl ari* hJ-^a »ii tsilM aiil oi i^isiB» 

njiKfl biiii ta^-srX-aansitJ ;J<i»o.'x^ ^imnxeq lodio -^ na io« ispanftbiiA tsdilaa 

:3xiirin0<i w«"rorj» nx beosXq nsetf bad do^y^ ^©Ic^a® Xssi bisa o;) 

T«Tea bad aaaiajiq sM;^ to noissaaseg: ;^ai£# ;aii4 Ott boitsviXeb ««#rf 

■^^xriori^w.'s 10 id^ixr issxttiilV'f b9b%Qoo% «<f oi b&mso ba& sjbjsw axieaiabijA 

fiisja *«di I^IsTicfooq:^©-! <00a,X?^ bfus 0OO»5# lo anssoX aji^s^'^o^ bs©o«« 

B*sebn«'i6b 1:0 jfnsanoo -jo ogfi^Xwornf sij* iworWiw uOisffl aittw abse> ^3«'x;f 

lo i^ii^io no if wo .bi«q lora a-ssiff a-^^nnoia oa iv-axU im^di lo 'xatl^ia xo 

6iiaR9X«'iB sffLt imit \miKii ^^ baxuoaa s^ioa siii io ab^ab loin* biao 

'aoiosrioaa ^wl amxjsXo oric? htsa afeaeb jTain^ 0W# ^4* ^-jX/zs 'to dt»;?T*a«o 

♦H is'ssarE^jM bxu5 ,T. au\x.lli^ lo ®X^x<r orii no iihuQX& J^siuS ti^mo ac»iX 

abifoXc a« bBvomsr ecf sffl^^a ;}«£lo b!yYDT:ij biua j«i.y*«e Xfiei: biji:ja o* Girr*rff 

bwfl HOC; 10 fgf liJBfl « Bl'ixini43Xq fe94».-yx;facr«s »fe'<^ 'iGita&iitti'i' 

IsitJ^lio jBTl^ (xf ^nsfRwXa^wa bOB irisiabnoetB as &eXi1 s^ocus^jfll. •£! bassmb::' 

XaKirgxrjo eil* lo ataiC* oi ■^alikrH al ia&aasglGasi ©d;>' jinJbgsXXa ,XXi«r 

'istxXsT iJBisa ©fi^ lO'i ^iCi;\{jc-3TQ bfsta jksxX 'a«>itmvjrt»9M so'i «J;«Xo tj''iAX?ni*>Xq 

«;r«isX<i«»o lo lltd six KJ: llJt^fKlj^Xq XoBaJ^ixo biea '\jrf ixfekwoa 

i|;Xx&©Xo «i 08«j30 alii;J jtii bairXovax eawaax »rii aniaiSYoa w«X r' 

i« bijBa ixu90 adi o"s«4Sff tQ£e •XXI ©£S eMS^SiSS »"^ «M0 ai AixQX iMia 

"The general rule at law is, that if a stranger enters 
upon the land of another and makes an improveiaent l)y erecting a 
■buildiHi., tlie "buildinr: 'bscomes the property of the owner of the 
land. (pQo ley v. Crist, 25 111. 453; Mathes v. 3joj)schuetja» I'd 
id. 438; Crest .v»~?aoi', 3 Y/atts, [Pa.'J '2"3'8T 1 ffi-lliard on Heal 
frop. 5») In equity, however, it the arniax- Kuand^ hy and peaalts 
another to expend money in iiaprovin,'^ his land he may ^e compelled 
to surrender iiis rights to the land upon receiving comptinsation 
therefor, or he may he ooranelled to pay for the improvement a. In 
Buch eases there is always sume ingredient which would make it a 
fraud in the owner to insist upon hie legal rights, Such an in- 
gredient may conaist in the owner encouraging tlit; stranger to 
proceed with the improvement, or vfhere one party acts i/?3iorantly 
and v.lthout the means of better inloriaation and the other reiiis.ins 
eilent when it is in his power to prevent the expenditure of the 
money under a delusion. It ha J hesn held in mch cases tiirt to 
permit one to take advantage of the miatake of another would he 
revolting to every sentinient of ju£;tice. (Clark v. Lecvitr , ?35 
111. 184; Loughran v. Gorman, 256 id. 4 6; Bright v. Boyd , 1 
Ltory, 478; 2 loiaeroy's Eq. Jur. sec. 807; Bigelow on T^stoppelp 
sec. 818; otory'8 Eq. Jur. 490.} The exercise of such a Judicial 
pov^er, hov.ever, unless "based upon some a,ctURl or implied culpability 
on the part of the party suhjected to it, is a violation of consti- 
tutional rights. ( Kirchno r v. Filler, 39 ir, J» Sq. 3R5«) .'oi error 
which is the result of inexousahle uegligenoe is uot auch an error 
as equity -will relieve. Hag^erty v. MoOanna , 25 H. J. Sq. 48. * 

In the Olin cape, g^upra, the Stipreae court also stated that 
"the law is well settled, hut the difficulty ?>,rises from the aispli- 
cation of the law to the particular fscts of erch case. Sometimes 
one or two facte In a case (distinguish it entirely from other casea 
which are citer? in favor of its holdings or contrary thereto, » 

July 14, 1926, defendants, miliara J. Burns and his vvlfe, 
TaecamiH the ovsners of the lot, then vacwit, involTed in this proceed- 
ing, llovemher 10, 19 2S, they entered into a v.Titten contrF.ct with 
William A. Anderson, wherehy they agreed to sell him lot for 
$1,800, acknov/ledging receipt of S50 from Mm as earnest money, end 
Anderson agi-eed to pay the haJLance of #1,750 vritMn four months 
"after the title has been examined and found good, or accepted Tiy 
him." A warr^aity deed to the lot, dated ITovemher 19, 1928» was 
executed by Burns and liis wife to Andrew F.. Anderson and his wife 
as grantees. This deed and the coritract for the sale of the real 
estate were deposited in escrow with the Comaionwealth Trust and 

Savings Bank as eserowe and an esorew receipt therefor given to 

ti tM^ 

ml *t\: sAi •tot v«<fj; (5;t ftwlJCacrBror* srf 7;«!ct »ff lo «r£Olt)T0rfi 

i; Ji i'lL.u-^i J.U'0. Liaxsiii -.ict&xl 

■«jXcfi>w«ottsJ:- £.! 

0i(* ,1:0 &■■ -■-9 ^di .' 


-;:..a ai. ei&tii a©a^,o xioi/a 
.:.av(. ,' .iaaoo xasti J. 

■■n-J ©Xf3 3i!QXi.. .:.: ,.,.1..,, 

si *Ji asdw inolla 

: J iXMucJIxro bsiXcfiei to I.HUi-tis Qmbe tioqu &sr.-,J r^Hau , tcav^u-oi: ^is^-oq 
-id-anco 'io mii^lolv js ai ,^1 o^ beio^ldv &di lo i^Mq; ©xi* go 

>-::i ■ ■ ■ -off? fj9fcf tf^9itt'-B rmrii^ai &di^ 

";9®r!0 «9rf*o motl yJEstx? f , ... 

.: tsirfia'JVQli .ski 

oi nsyJrji loio'XSiid' ;lqi-i0Ji. ■'mo;'.;: as a; 

. '.■igs.JOBT© SB 

Bums "by the bank Kovemljer 23 » 1928. Anderson did not pay the 

"balance due on the purchase price of the lot and the deed and con- 
tract were nerer delirered to him "but were reclaimed hy Burns May 
28, 1929, "because of such nonpasnnent. In the interval and during 
the period "between Christmas, 1928, and April 20, 1929, under con- 
tracts with said William A* raiders -.»i and at his instance, the 
appellant lienors and others practically completed the construction 
of a "building on the premises* aOiderson also caiisod 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 plaintiffs* assignor to complete the excava- 
tion, foundation and masonry work necessary in the construction of 
the "building, nothing was paid, and it filed its 3iechf?nics' lien claim 
for '"1,540. Neither 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 biiilding and 
they filed their mechanics* lien claims in the respective amounts 
of $728 «41 and $125. Mo money was ever paid out on the mortgages. 
There is no dispute as to the contracts between the lienors and 
Anderson, the performarxce of said contracts by the lien claimants, 
the time when the work was originally comtuenceci and completed there- 
under or as to the proper filing of the lien claims. The lienors 
admit that they did not know Viilliam J. Burns or his wlfei that they 
never dealt with themj that they never served them with oontraotors* 
or material -men* 6 statements; and that they never investigated the 
ovmership of the property in question, isfo evidence was offered that 
Bxirns or his wife authorized .^derson to enter into or sign the 
construction contracts • 

rhe major and really the only qu'jstion presented for our 

determination is whether or not Burns and his wife or either of 

t»g *ofi feid m^xsbHA .eS^X *5S 'retfiasvol^l ixwjrf axiii' ^ci" eniuE 

-Hvsajca Si5,? o4»Xqf:r )Kj!,i8s^ >Kl1:i;$ffl«I^ ^rf bViis^tatirJ LBtt@iJm bits 

bmt ^X!kl^ .ktm- 'ie mtiaviivimo mi o.t«l .trior $isjii ^Yj-^rlio^qaot 

>a«*iii(iaoo i(,iXiSiix, 

:<V3U -yjij^. 

)iJ«tialb on ei ©lexiT 

'*& %&bms 

i^j ita^di dilw tJimpb tsysa 

fuiemaiR^fi a'tism-Xsiiaitam to 

^' ■' ' ■ ' " i^otiiaaii. hQni'jLodii.' ' ^iM 10 arcurff 

vO •:■ :. .K^j.v .rici xioiiapup -\iX«o sixid x;XJE-'59'i bitjs ^dt-ara «ti^' 

- J •■■: ^.1 ,i b y ^ el4.iii& i • 

aioii -■ • . ■ . 
'e"x«)Joiit£Ji:oo diiyr modi 

them knowingrly permitted Anderson to contract foi the cOTistructi^n 
of the building or knowingly permitted such construction. V/illiam 
A. Anderson, who entered into the various contrects with the 
lienors, and his father, Andrew E. Anderson, v^o was one of the 
grstntees in the warranty deed, were made party defendants hut de- 
faulted, and neither of them were witnesses in this prooeeding. 
To sustain their position that 'iilliam J» Bums and Margaret R. 
Burns or either of them knov/ingly permitted William A. /vnderson to 
contract with them for the construction of the "bungalow or kneiaringly 
permitted such construction, the lien claimants rely entirely upon 
the testimony of one Lloyd Wheeler* 

?or a proper and cleared xmd ers tand ijuc of ^^lieeler's testi- 
mony, we will recite same fully in so far as it ie contended it hears 
on the question in controversy. He testified that he w as assistant 
cashier in charge of the real estate loan department of the Oommon- 
wealth Trust and Savings Bank in 1928 and 1929, and that it -was hi a 
duty "to appraise property, pass upon mortgages and new loans > handle 
escrows, hrine down title** and to function generally in connection 
ivith real estate loans; that just hefore Christmas j 1928p the Common- 
wealth Trust and Savings Bank agreed to make a first mortgage con- 
struction loan of v^6»000 to \filliam A. MderscBi on the vacant lot at 
8114 Lafayette avenue "for a new building to he 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 recommendation to the Board of Directors that the loan he 
passed, which it was;" that he "handled an escrow for Mr* and Mrs. 
Burns and William ^\adersonj wherehy they agreed to give title to 
William Anderson upon the payment of a certain sun of money, the 

ml^^^iem -j-i ioe^rimo o* f»a^©6nA b&i^ixat^q xX3«Jtwoirf aedi 

©iit T:© 5;., yjB&iir tffijQisSKA »^ wsT&nA ^Torf^r,! airi Bob «aicfisll 

«&!) itid a*jKJBJb«®l»f) ij^Tf,^ gb«jH ^'xs;?' «>)»9& xirmrrM'^ &d^ aS: a»»*fia^ 

.||'n^6f©o«tq: srl^ itti aaaBsnJlw stbw disxli' Isj rtidiiBa hits tb9i£v&^ 

m<t0 tX9Ti;*ii© YX»t EjKsatlaXo nsil 9rf;t ,iioi*ojir!c;^Bneo rioire bsj^jtotaq; 

• Tfi»Xs«jtiW bxeLl 9«o "io ynoiaiia®* eri* 

-.i.*:';o;? a'teoXoeffr"' ■*© rEi^^frnjRTrhHx/ 'srs's.aslu ban laqeiq js to*? 
s'l;,;: ,- j'Srf.o^m- .llu'i seise e^^ioet II.-.-. ,'{nofl! 

eij;;i .^ •;;•■..■ i' .t i Mi bttB t«?S9I BtLT 8S©X rti :inj&R agnlTflS bn« *aw'xT rJiX^sow 

(ilbufid <3£LooX v«-s« b£tB t:::iaj3Bd'TOia fxcciti >iasq; t'(c#'X9qoic[ ©sl.etc.r >-;*i;b 

mtstoenmo ei TiXX.sia«»s noi^t-. )r£,« ^9Zm nwo5 i^xslrtrf ^eraroroa© 

r.rjOa:;Y orfv1 no nos'Xfifea. .A fiiBiXXl^ o* OOG^dl^ lo njisoX nol^otf-x^a 

. bn^oinciGfloo 8cf o-* giiifoXiucr wen « t.o1^ awisevi's ©i** ©x^'-^JS'I MX8 

bftoosa ji" sbjset t^neaii^cqab fl^oX Qs^i"a:oia baooea T«fO flaja'OTrfJ osXs ew baa 

arii^ to anoid'o'3oili:o©q:s bns (siUiLq_ a v.^rs^gT&aq; rfn.«30i5y ©xii beelBtqqa'* 

9tf 0«oX ei"I>; ?..'f.t a-yei/syoilOL lo b'xjsoll r-JiiJ oJ noiijBbftafiKiooei ebBK , f?Gi/ox£ 

.arti^ fci..u ..-.,. iol woTOS© na b^j.......^^ i., u^'ii^t "je^w *i: xipJUfff ibsaajsq 

oif eXitid 0VI3 o;} osot^js xoii* ■^«rs»rr&x&sf ,i3oai©f»fi;. ajuiXXiW fe«fi Brcays/S 

moneys to "bo derxvsd iioni tiie first and second mortgage construa-- 
tion loans on the firct draw on these loans i" that "the escrow 
was placed in our "bank *** along vdth the warrsjity deed aii''. con- 
tract for the deed*'* and that "the warranty deed was from Burns 
Gild wife to Anderson?" that he did not hare any converBatieo 
"directly** with Bumo or William A. A>nder3on concornin..; the esarow, 
hut that he did hare a converss.tion "wdth my stenographer with 
respect to drawing the escroY/ up* iKhich Bums and his ?.if e ajid 
ijaderson» who "were standing about fire feet av'ay from me couldn't 
help hut hear;" that his stenographer r-sked him "where the money 
vv'as to came from to pay for the lot» malting second mortgage, and 
then as to the clause to go in escrow to protect" the hank from harm* 
and he told her that "we had agreed to make a first mortgage con- 
strue ti on loan and a clause was to he placed in this es^icrov; holding 
the hank from harm» giTing information that the wt.rranty deed and 
contract waie noo to he given out until the purchaiee price had heen 
paid in lull *** the aoney» in payment of the deed *** was to ccme 
out of the construction loan after title had heen perfected in Burns j» 
that "the first mortgage wae ciigned and rtscorued and made hy our hank* 
*** We agreed to make the loan at the time Mr* Blovmt was vice presi- 
dent of our hank in Deceniber, 1928} •♦ that "he left our hank hack in 
January, 1929, and opened hia ovna office in the next hlook and asked 
if he could continue v/ith the loan he had started, which we agreed 
to do;" that the witness "dictated in the escrow agreement that the 
purchase price was to come out of the first mortgage loan;" that 
"we had another loan of Anderson's going through at the same time, 
in the eame block}" that he could not state whether Burns or uny one 
else was present when Anderson "made application for loan" oii the 
lot in question; that ">Jmery Blount had a second mortgage company, 
which had heen our suhsidiary," and "hetween the two ^loxmt] 

«<^i^aax»TKO:a '^fta svi'./^ jf©fl bib amel *sf{5 *|KOBTS&fiA o^ ©tiw bxic 

rf^iw TSiigi! 1-30x1© *s t?<f xii'hs*' jaoiJsaisvnoo b &vari bl6 sjpC *arf* ixjtf 

*'nf>XiWOP <WK fljoil '^jewd Jasl 3t11 ituecTj? sxiifeiiisie sxe^" ox!)? inoa-sgftttt 

■^©wott art* i9«f>j4iv» ffltM &©3faB tsA[i^taofroJ« qM rfarfj "{•tssxl ^xrrf qtsUl 

5aj8 e!?3,es*to« fenoo98 Bfli3f«« <.tol 9^ ^ot "^q 0* motl aaroc oj s^ 

"jjanxtfS: Kx waio^'*..-'i »^o©tf &jSil etilS x^itja tmol uationx^c^i,..:., adilXiitJO 

- :c.(3je btUi ioeltf #3C6tt sji* fix ttoillo mvo aixl bsKoqo biXfi *6^sei tX-XBUtmZ 

b&isx^si sw ifsiriw tM^-^^ia fc^jxl &tl asoX arfJ ri^iw ©imiinoo bXuoo ml li 

igai* *«ri* iasmoet^B^oT'oei® siS* ni fcsJjs^oifo" asancJiw &d.i isdi "job 0* 

^iictit ^jnsol 0T^ts^,ir€iTn jrnrtki »riJ l-o ;joo e»mco oi anw 9£>iiq sasxlo'swq 

??ruT :-o "£tsoI loi Koii^.sollqqja objaai" aoa-xafejoA aarfw iTaaaiSiq ajaw ssXe 

^--inBCfJHob "Jtjjssrf'tom brsoo.^a a feaxJ ^KwaXff -^loitC!?'" i&sii jnoiiesir? fix ;to£ 

[:tmroXCi ow* stli nsawJetf" foils ".Tj^^ibiarfwe txjo iiPOef bjod doMw 

eoaqpaniea they ^rexe ^oing to liraidle the deal, er.cQpt the escrow, 
^iMoli was to "be maintained in the ■barikj" th;^t both /jacifle?.* 15 » 
Anderson, the father, and Villiaa A. Anderson j the son, ^/ere present 
when the eaero^i' agreeair-nt was si^ed la December, 1920J that during 
Ms oonveraation \rith hiy stenographer at th$ "bank when .indrev S* 
Anderson, 7/illiaja ijadsrson and Burns and his wife lievQ pr?;;ent, It 
was mentioned that a "building was goinij up on "that lot" and "it 
■would liaye to bs" srid "that the purchase price of the lot should 
be paid out of the proceeds of the construction lopja and a building 
was put up there J" that the plans and specifications of the Irailding 
proposed to he built on the lot were •'produced at the tiwe the appli- 
cation for the loan vjac raadc* and tlint the Rpplication for the loan 
was made "at the s;:me time the escrow - greement was si(med;" thp,t he 
secured a warrant for V/illiam A. Anderson and "tried to find him for 
four months, vrith a detective;" thrt Bumr signed the ecorow agree- 
ment but said nothing vrhen the v.ltn"£s had the converBr.tion with Ms 
stenographer "in the presence of Kr» end Mre. Burns find I!r» .Anderstm" 
and made no comciGnt at till "as to the ouildin^ that was eoin£- on the 
lotj" tliat the a&crow at^'reement which he had Bums sijn just prior 
to Christmafc, 1928, when he deposited the contract of sbIs snd war- 
ranty deed at the bank and \i*iich contained *an agreement between the 
parties tiiab the purchase price ahould be paid out of the first loan* 
was a document entirely separate and distinct from the encrow receipt 
for the warranty deed, v/hich was given to Burns Hovember 23, 1928 j 
and which is s.a f ollowst 

"Chicago, 111. Nov* 23, 1925 

Received of William J. Burns '.Warranty Deed rtinninry from 
^dn* J* and Margaret H* Bums to Andrew D* and Louisa Anderson, 
conveying Lot 31 in Block 9 in Mcintosh Bros* State St. Add. to 
Chicago in the 3S l/2 of S. 35, 1\ 38 U. R. 14, to be held at this 
"bank in escrow until the terms of a certain Contract of Sa-le, 
dated Mov. 10th, 1928 between the above parties ha:; bfc^n fiilfilled* 

P. M. Ztafer." 


*F ™^?»hn.' ttiod if.M "ji^tBtf eiivi nt JjasiJ^AitKijBfii erf oi aati doldm 
jjj.-.g"'^ s-r_; , -Tit tfiQ&if'fjnA th. euiUilM btis tXoAial &sii tac&xebSiA 

. ;; .,tjr.(&;.c-i '••T'^w sllv' siri feass acii£tt« batj mQtf^hm. mO,^^ .,.X!|>E-jai»JiA. 

rff^ot fii!.! ""1: ^r^•;i5JoiX^^SSJ arf* #Aii- >b^i2J a^r cuscX wU -jol noi^tao 

;.^ tn'5W!4a-s®.'- woxoo,© surf* asi* cimoa 9xl| *fl" ©bcm qaw 

... , -a-jo s>iJ3 f)o«al:e acmff ;JM* "t-efl^astafe « J:fjrJtw «!«f*«Offl tj/«1 

^mw%i9f^f'- .-^^ ■'»! t!*e:j?a ♦a«M b^ . . -. -v.^j^i^zct s>d$ ai" x©£uii5asoa9*a 

■'^* lic> ,,i..w„ c;.w #a(l^ ^aXhSili}i>, «aS^ o; ..-'■ _- :3 ;?«&£aai{?9 on aofici bos 

■ o^fcsg; #e0t Jtssis aiCEwS fej34.aii. xioMw *a3«i©.»it^s yo .:oa. stf* #.*ai* ^\i9l 

»i*0ibX imn 9^ ^ *«o .. •;•■ biu&da solzq, se^xlp'aiq, od* *«|1# «o1^t«« 

A:<M'if>0XVftit»39 9*1^ ffloil: #p*a*fiJtb tojB. ©*saisq[»B xlo'iiim iamssoob b a«w 
tPilSI ,5:s Tstfiaavol acxtffl o* flfirla saw 4oM>v , bssfa -^^xifiitis .- aciJ lol 

i£;-/;oIIo"i ar. «i l£»iffw bos 
5Se,X ,n„gS,,*yg|[ .III tOBJBSirir;" 

o;? ,ftbA .*i; »;r3;^8 . oH nl « ^CooXiT ni: iZ :fn.t j,nn8vnoo 

aM;r *i» ?»X»if e«i o^ ,M .E ,k ho .t ,• ■ -> SV ii slid at o^i^^oJ:rfO 

,9Xi58 lo JojR'r^noO alBiitio & to ^^ • mm: woix^^o ax. >.nBcr 

.I,>i3 IXitXul n^drf B«rf aal*-!:.!«i owds 8i« .v..t;, .;»u SSeX erfiOX ./ou bsisb 

«.is"tXirS .M .1 


Asked if he could produce at a future hearing the "escrow agree- 
mentf" concerning which he teetified, V^eeler answered: "I would 
try to" and asked if "the records pf 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 aad the escrow agreement which he stated Burns signed in 
Becemherf 1928* was not produced in eyidenoe* 

The difficulty with /heeler's testimony is that it is absol** 
tely incrediljle. 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 w^hy he shoiild 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 hank had agreed that the balance of the 
purchase price of the lot would he 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 euid 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 lot. 

But not only is ¥theeler*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 witnesses* 
Turner, the real estate man who brouj^t 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 Bums on that date and oocasion deposited with the bank 

bii& i&vi'il dilH&wmssmioO &£ii 'io e&5oa«T ©.s£i" ti !}«;}£e4s btts "o* yt* 

Ki &©Qsis Bfi^isra: b&i^ASei &si iisMw ^waisms'isij sreitoao eiU htm ease 
♦ ©WiebiT© nj bozusbaiq ion sbw ^B&Ql , i»tfiB©o?t(l 

-Jioo *on a,BVk' Xif.96 esii xriii C'i ea 'iXas^x siineostq noasart sXtfieweXq on 

■X3&a4 .4 jwxXXJtW ^ol JiooX o;} otM feixfoxfa arf X^w 0* ea ban bsisascawa 

xo'i d'ldX aaMiow sjbw •i«x{* «*e9X99j:£* 0* SjaifeioosA fertio&iob js ii#Jtw 

ajttaoX aaaa^aocr osyi sild- 'xo'i xitoxjJ's©iXqq/3 aJtil qm dousm^^ii ob oi noana&HA 

©xC;^ iG ©oxtslsd" «xl5 isrf;f baeTCga bad ifuscT 9i^* b/je ^•▼oi'qqja xio«cf bad 

a©t'3t *w«Tri) ^axi'i odi siilw*' bijiq, 9Cf bXwow *oX atU io ^oiiq aaadotXTq 

^riXsitte. ail ^X»eooX wori I0 aasX^sssai «:iijQU96' -s^ia ^.nxJJ sXtfleacwj aai&sB 

XXw'i &di oi axusol »3«sdi©ffl aoUt>a&a ftlwow ,&«#oii&ixoo xisorf sysxi Tjaai 

-'>vo-iqiaJ: badjaXqiasiJisco »x£j J>«j3 fsd'ijlas X»o« orf^ lo mlar mii Xo i^a»i3S» 

&iii ill %».LS»lt. mJ^siJi& « 10 iii^iffiteevai ojfijf iiiodffJta' coetcailct a*rte«t 

. #oX atii lo «oiiq »a «-^oixfq 9xl;J no 

;^ sXtfib^'^uax x4^;lH©'3:©xLtti *»«©£» xv« a*i:oXe»if«!' al %£&& ioti iiiK 

oi l&lx&tim ^fsomlia&i aid XX^e bijs feerio^iwpti a»w »ii 3««f ,9ldjei(fo:cq:iax 

•^•tsJusfiUJoorj -zfS b&iut&x aem aajso arid' nx sxreex bs^ieTOi^cco \:X<io sri* 

♦ aeaeenilw fe&^f-aerxadjfctaib &kb aaTtxrS lo -^aoajx^ap^ ^di bxts oonsbiT* 

d'srid' fxil^i^aaiJ ,JoX acTiirS: arid' lo ©Ir; s7& tHJS 


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 "Cosjiaonwealth 
Trust and Savings Bank" hy "P. M. Zulfer." Burns testified to the 
same effect and Miss 2ulfer, who was eraployed 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 
hears, Novemher 23, WaS** The contract and warranty deed having 
heen placed in escrow at the hank Hovemher 23, 1923, what possihle 
reason or excuse was there for another escrow agreement a month later? 

XlsB Zulfer testified further that .heeler waa not the 
manager of the real estate loan department of the hai^ either during 
Hovember or I>ecemher, 1923, hut that Mr* HuBsell Blount was such 
manager until January 1, 1929, when he r esigned from the hank to go 
into the mortgage husineas for himself; that she had heen employed 
in the real estate loan department of the hank since May, 1923 j that 
she "had charge of all loan applications, drawing papers on all loan 
applications that were accepted by the Goamonwealth Trust and Savings 
Bank" and that every loan application accepted "by the hank came to 
her attention; and that no application was ever made hy William A« 
Anderson or .^drew 2. Anderson for a loan from the hank on the 
property at 8142 lafayette avenue. At one point in his testimony 
l/^heeler eta ted that the "bank made and recorded the first mortgage. 
The evidence chowB conclusively that one of the Blount companies 
made the first mortgage, paid the charge for bringing the title down 
to include hoth mortgages, paid the recording fees and that the re- 
corder thereafter returned hoth recorded mortgages to that company* 

Burns testified that the only time that he met Anderson at 
the hank or was there in connection with an escrow agreement ae to 
the lot in question, Aas when he deposited the contract of sale aid 

stdcf Son BJBW a9le©j:ftv *jbcW "xftd[*««lE: b9l1lity.ei iBTHui: aaiM 

fssft© !<!«*» *»«rf fiorf orfa *^* jlXeuisM -xo'i asewiewcf ^BJ^a^^Offl fidd a^ml 

trMi iFS.9l ,x«M sonie rffiarf ©ri;J te drjca9iB4i:s«j©6 a«oX sta^taa Xesi adi* tii 

naoX lis; no ansqxsq 8ixiwi:.-i) »a«oidJ3©lXq:qjs «»el XX« lo o^iisrio bafl" fexla 

a®atv®8 6n« .fawtT ifd^XjeavrrajsasFerO ad* ^«f fe»*<i®cc.ii oiw ^srfo «isoi^><ssiX^» 

o* ©ffico to«(f «jfl;? T«^ 6s*Q»o«B Hci*.«oiX<jq:« ksoX yxsv9 rf 3ii;f 5hc "::Iaj»a 

•'CJKOfflld'B&d' eM Hj: iakoq, 9«o ^A .©jjiiavR eiJiiitX^lSvl SMS *£ ifdtaqoTcq; 


warranty deed in escroxiF there November 23 » 192S» arid receiTed on 
that date the escrow r eoeipt therefor t heretofore shovm* The 
testimony of Burns that his vflfe was in a aanitariiaa at Milwaukee » 
Wisconsin, continuously since prior to HoveBiber 10, 1928, until 
March, 1929, stands uncontradicted on the record and therefore 
she could not have heen at the mesting at the "b&ak just prior to 
Christmas, 1928, as testified to hy .^heeler. The further testimony 
©f Bums that he fir«t learned that the building had been erected on 
kLs property «4ien he yisited the lot in July> 1929» with his td.fe 
and others^ and discovered the hungalow under construotitm and eighty 
or ninety per cent oompleted, also stands uncontradicted, and the 
occasion of Raid visit is corroTaorated "by a svumaons in evidenee 
isEued out of the Municipal court of Chicago and returnahle July 26, 
1929, in a cause involvine said lot. 

Ellen Dlmmock, employed by the receiver of the bank and 
•who appeared in response to a subpoena duces tecum directed to said 
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 
and Savings Bank and William J* Burns and ^Vndrew B» Anderson or 
William A. /"Jiderson or any record of same in the books of said bank; 
GOid that her extensive search failed to reveal an application to the 
COBimonwealth Trust and Savings Bank made by imdrew E. Mderson, 
A* 1%» .'jaderson or ..llliam A* i^derson for a loan on these premises 
or any record of same on the hooks of the bank*^ 

A 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 chance that they might overhear what he said when he dictated 
such texrms to his etenographer . Although he insisted that Bums 

00 fo©^^»8s^^ aascf bM siiiftiiwtf Mii ^jtoii' B®HTjis9i tfaill »S frntii atsftisft to 
a'ij:*; aM Mi^ t^S^X *v,XiJt «x Jol »/!# feeiisiiv 9<t mifw i;t#t»«j©iE<j sM 

.^oJE fel«e gcirXoiffirl »s&do « al i'9S^l 

ab'iaoe'i bttB etaqisti BSii iX« cJ aaaooja bad uds *««E# I)0i1i^-a?># «*t»Yi9o*»1t 

*8uxT li;^ X,)4»wa©««sFf,) 0rf? tt«»»«^stf *HeRt«>«i9J5 miimB £s.'.5 bnil oj aXtf/si:© 

TO noats&aa «gi ws'xfoiT. to.3 etrm^ >.\, jafilXXxi' fci3« sCfiea a^wlfji^ feflSi 

^::ixu!tf bij5ia lo aSk>©<{f »Jt£;f til ©ausK ':):« btftosr fa« Ito ffl»«*t9trisA ^A ateiXX^ 

asuoxKa-iq oasri* m) iujbX k 'lol woarrelifiA .A oteilXiV ■xo a©«rt:9fcff . ».. 
4ii£ii«f ©Jit to aalefttf mli m mmiii iNa* RtO^Ssi xtm to 

BMB^B^a ».«! *BXf* ex X^Omld^B©^ e*«9l0»rfi¥ to 9T»*^»t «|^JDEjBld'B A 

B^as&rtatsfe fS»i.ttfiq bsniaet&^sil adi AMotni ^xXf-^^^-th* ^&tt bib od isidi 

BiCJQPcl the escrow instrument* there is nothing in his testimony 
to indieate that Bums re.-d it or was permitted to rsad it. One 
•would think the parties having "been hrourJtit together for the 
express purpose of closin? the deal throush an escrow sgreomenti 
Rocordlng to V?heeler, that he would impress upon Burns the unusual 
provision of the agreement iJa&t the latter was to get the halenoe 
of the purchase price of hie lot out of the proceeds of the con- 
struction loan* But no» .ifheeler says that Burns, William A* 
/oiderson and the others, v/ho were in a group about five feet away, 
were not advised as to the contents of the escrow sgreement except 
as they may have overheard what he dictated to his stenographer* 

\vheeler also testified that he could not atate whether Bums 
or any oae else was present wh^i Anderson "made hi a application for 
loan." He then proceeded to testify that Anderson made his appli- 
eation for a loan "at the same time the escrow 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 teBtimon-r given by '^heeler along this line waB that while 
Burns and the others were in the group five feet away, the witness 
in his conversation Tfith his stenographer "mentioned" that a "build- 
ing was going up on "that lot" and that Burns made no ccanraent "as 
to the >)uilding that was going on the lot." The obvious purpose of 
this teBtlTDony was to "bring heme knowledge to defendants that the 
construction of a building on the preiaises was contemplated by 
William A. Anderson* 

ABSuming that Wheeler* s testimony was true that the plans 
and speclfi cations were produced when imderson applied for the loan 
in Burns' s presence and that his other testimony concerning the pro- 
posed biiilding was true, and assuming further that the defendants 
had actual knowledge that vvilliam A. iinderson or his parents 

XWiMlSBs^ sM til saMiJOfi 8l ®!t4»ffj ^i£ wetom 9dJi ftejpaia 
OXX0 ti.t 0^1® 1 o* bc^ilept^ ujstr t© *i 6je:ot arquyMSt, *j8rf;J 9t&&lbni 9t 

-aoo stf * ta E^&s&ootg, 9iii "io rfuo *oX airi lo 9o±t£q[ oa&tioxuq^ «trf? \» 

'ml mliAit^tliiqu aid. «5jm8'* iK)3'3Eaiinu»|i»riw JosesTqi; asw »ej:«j ©ao ■^:«jb lo 

sXiirfw istsl^ ,s>0ir: 9fiii sixtit ^oeXs taXoaycfv- Xef H9v±b \:ncjaiJ:;^a9d :£«o 

B«»«*±w 9di -«X»^ ^aol; airiS <pf©tB ®je*^ fi-^ ©x&w a-rasff^o »xf.t Lxus mfafff 

..{5i;iij£»>o pa ©5sM airtuK iadi fens "SoX ijad.f" no ^u gnioa ««w jal 
1:0 sao^'uwj aiipivcfo ©xfT "..toX «al;? no ■^alo'^ tusvr itsAi ■^ntbXi.ud -^rfC' oi 

Yo' &ev''sXqHio^aco a*-5W eaeiissiq arfi* fso B«ibXJ:ij :iold'ain:^sitoo 

• raiQtsfcnA •A itisiXXlW 

e^iwfonotsb bs'- aaiiamja^ feoa ,oin# saw a«ii>X.tx/tf bsaoq 


oontemplated Tjuilriinp: a "bungalow on the premises, how aould such 
knowledge posribly of feet the rifxhts of the defendants? The deal 
fell through. Knowledge that the contract purchaser of the lot 
was going to build thereon if he acquired the o'>raership thereof 
and the legal title thereto, surely cannot be held to be knowledge 
that .\nderson vip,B e-oing to enter into contracts for the construction 
of a building on the premises whether or not he acquired such ovmer- 
shi;^ and title. 

We are convinced that not only was no escrow agreement 
entered into between the parties in December, 1928, as related 
by 'ti/heeler ,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 ii v/e 
assume the truth of all of iVheeler's testimony, tixe very most 
that can be gleaned therefrom is that .i.iliiam A. iJideA-son abandoned 
a real estate deal that was highly advantageous to him in tha.t the 
balance of the purchase price of the lot vvaa to oe paid out of the 
censtruotion loan and that the defendants poss-ibly overheard theeler 
tell his stenograiiier that if the deal went through and the .Andersons 
acquired the owiership of ma title to the premises, they v/ ere i.:olng 
to erect a building thereon* 

At first blush it might appear hi^-hly inequitable to permit 
the defendants to enjoy the benefit of the labor and mp.terials that 
went into the construction oi thd building on their premises vrithout 
requiring them to pay for same* Hov^ever, the lav/ is v/ell settled 
that "if a stranger enters upon the land of another and makes an 
improvement by erecting a builoine;, the building becomes the property 
of the owner of the 1- nd unless it can be sh0"km that such owner of 
the land authorized in some manner or knowingly permitted the build- 
intf to be erected." ( 01 in v. Reinicke , supraj ) It is oonoeded that 
the lien claimants in the ins-tant case were absolute stran£:erB to 

losts9il* gJbstB^anwo si^^ bstiMpaa *xi 5:1: nt>in9ti^ hlhr<i ai 3JnJ:©8 iiw'''* 
-Tsrwo lioi^K feo«±i,'Po>5 »ff ;ton to ^oilSsjxlw easieiorxq odi tic -gnibllud .a lo 

J^ aixiscf 9rf* :?« ;):9iC tfoa bib aeiintjaq bJtjse J«ii;t ^iJCf.^Qlewfw ^tf 

a&w iglXi^oiSja^o si^i «aoi:£^lqo -uro ax «&a8 «8csltf ^jsxf^t .tB IXs 

.TinofflXjas;^ aM ^■C'Jt&^^jiSiaib \;X©Ti*fl© fii bail 

, .Oil ■,, <\;«oai:i894 8»t94e94« '10. JLf*. ?P rUu-j:,-? oii^r ©(Huaae 

-.ijcoiji.c;ru3Vba AcXrij^M aisw ijidi Xs9b siB^as Xjb^t s 

.ndoiaq. fiiii to soasiled 
%e' 'ii i£iiLi bna xisoX aolioutiiaoDo 

8no.y- vTis xi^C'Xii;] jjasw i-sb - ri^ isiijisTCSoneia bM XXa* 

:gn' 5 .i«ai«©itq axiJ Maioowo 9xl;t bsiJtupoB 

. lio ri-)xi^ snibXlwcf js *o©i» o^ 

.^..i^iii a.-iwii.ii.:i v)iij.Uii a siBirlrr -f- ■■ '-'^ ? 

♦ ,' ■ ■ 


the defendants and there is not a scintilla of evidence in the 
record ttui't the defendants "authorized* consented to or knowingly 
perinitted" "'illiain A. Anderson to contract with the lienors or that 
they had any Icnowledge of or stood "by and permitted said lienors 
to inrtall the Im •)rovements on their land. 

Moreover is not the lienors' plight the result of the|.r 
omi inexcuaahle negligence? It is a matter of common knowledge 
that most new Toyildings are paid for at least in part through con- 
struction loans. It is cuGtomary and it was incumhent upon the 
lienors in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence to inCLuire 
where the money was coming- from to pay them. LUiUiry vvould have 
revealed where, if at all, a loan had heen secured to finance the 
censtruotion of the building. The record dlsclo£.et> xao auch inquiiy. 
Even a cursory investigation would have shov^-n that ..illiajE A« 
Anderson did not ovaa and had no title to the property involved* 
and therefore had no authority to enter into tho construction con- 
tracts with the lienors, jiothing on the part of the defendants is 
disclosed that carriee even a suspicion or tinge of fraud, 8x16 in 
the aTasence of their actual or implied culpaMlity it woijld he 
a violation of their constitutional righto 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 stat^;d herein the decree of the Superior 
court is affirmed. 

Friend and oconlan, .TJ», oonour* 

Hiou&il bMa bai^ SMsxsq, £>i»s '^' bo©*: ^SbsIf/ofDt y«« fe^uf ^^* 

-nOQ d^,HOiiU Ss.sq ax iasQl ia rot blnq ^ib aanibXJUftf wm!. tm>m 5f»*f* 
srfif ftofji; *a©fCgKfs«i sbw *J: &■«« '^pcfiaotewo ei il .anaoi nctif out** 

,^:;ciiJ; 1.: Jioir ; <;.: a9<soXo«ii.b a«oo0 *J s»^ •^ttlbXiJucf odit t« noiS^WEtaaoo 

: lii jsvoiie avail bXirow aoicfssjJtJ'aeTffll Y'S-oa^J^o « c»t5C 

tuovic 7X3:1 -^^'xwq,ot% aX^ltf &«£ fojsii biia unre icn bib aearufbsik 

ni: bixii tiyHRtl "ic ^-^ali i» xiQJLoJtqaua & *i©ve ^sliaap ^jwl^ bt»8«Xpaib 
c;r: Mr ,' -^ '" ^''^^[JUyo li©,J:X)iiiU ^« X^iff? o « X isxW lo @o«©Bie> oif* 

vjisqo^ %i0di iaci^gfi ataxia lo 


•TTj/onc V ,t«iXiiBOM ftoft bii^ji-xi: 


SRAiffi: KRYLi 

Appellee » 

JOffll Cf, ii:gL:szinf, doing 
liusiness as John Or* Zeleznj 
& Company et al*f 



29 I.A. 5 9 9' 


This appeal seeks to rererse a default judgment for ^366* 
including a special finding that "nialice is the gist of this 
action," rendered June 15, 1936 » against defendant, John G* 
Zelezny, doing husinecs as John G« Zelezny & Company, on the 
complaint of plaintiff. Prank Kryl, filed April 24, 1936. 
Defendant having heen personally serred with auimaons, was de- 
faulted June 9, 1936, for want of appearance and answer, and 
the cause was continued to June 15, 1936, to perniit plaintiff 
to "prove up the extent and amount of hia Judgment herein and 
for the entry of any other orders as to this court will seeai 
fit." On 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 husiness as 
John G. Zelezny & Company, is guilty as charged in the complaint; 
and the court finds specif ic^JLly and specially that malice ie the 
gist of this action and finds 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 


t 99lX»qQ;A 

taTffa jaaAfii 


iSAViijcra srorroijx 0HiciiBirs<i .foi 

uMi le Jaig 9il;J nl ©oJtXfifii" d'jsrU sixi&jrill Isioaqs b sniBwIonl 

.0 fffCoXi t^nsfinalsb d-aaJLcaa <3S6X «2X aawu b^iabnsi "tnol^os 

iiili no (ijcjsqiaoo A -yinKoXoi!: .0 oriot sa aasniajjif gfliofo *"s;nE9XoS 

»d£9X »^S Xlt^iA l>*Xi'i tX"?:*!! :y:flari'a[ ,l:'il*jc!iBj:c lo ^nl^Xqiaeo 

ItlLtiilaXq ^JieiiSKj o;J tSCeX «5X scwt o* &9iiiil;t«oo aaw eaxr^o sxt* 

.iase' f.uoo airi;? o;^ a» a-sybio i^iiio xtm "ko '^t*jso 8ii# rol 

©ff^J saiir-orf i*itJOt) X^iiiai mii 3ie.b boa&UoBm i&aX ad* aO ".JIT: 

64iBt si iuls^lsitaoo ^Ai ^0 siaol^BS^-^-C^ s^'i^ XXjs bna ao«8 ji'£f(* s^jsb 

s« eBsnJrsM BJEi^ob (-^£S£^»Xa.\ •{> wiol iSa&bixQteb iadi baa (8in* •«£ 

S^nJtsXqfiioo d.r{# ni (^•si^jiio as ^iXij:;^, «x 4^ca£({iao0 a!^ ^^aseXs^ >0 tufoL 

«xft rai 9olS.Bm isidi ^XXslooqa bc« ^Xlseilloaqa efcail iiuoo edi fona 

asocf ii3d 'ittiElslq imdi xeH^mrl afijKJS: bus noiioa aids io *als 

the judgaent order. JtAy 18, 1936, defendant by Ms attorney 
filed his speoial appearanoe «to quash service and set aside the 
Jud^ent." <^ the sanie date defendant* 8 motion to raoata the 
judf^ent was stricken hy the court on plaintiff's motion on the 
ground "that it has no juriadiotiOB to consider the def eiidant' s 
applieation, more ths© thirty days haring expired since the entry 
of judgment." No report of the proceedings is included in tkA 
record and the questions raised are as to the s-af H ciency of the 


Plaintiff »B complaint alleged in substanoe that one 

Josephine Brezina and her huehand, being indebted in the svai 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 j 
that the interest on said note until maturity waa evidenced %y 
ten interest coupons for |240 each, interest coupon lo. 1 maturing 
December 1, 1926, and the remaining coupons one every six months 
thereafter, each bearing interest at T% after maturity; that to 
secure the payment of such principal note and interest coupwas, 
and simultaneously with the execxition of same, JosepMne Brezina 
and her husband executed and delivered to John Cr* Zelezny, as 
trustee, their trust deed conveying to him certain premises 
described 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 namftd 
as a defendant, was the owner and holder of interest coupon note 
ISO* 5, one of the aforementioned series of interest coupons and 
that plaintiff having paid Sada |240 for interest coupon note 
Ho* 5 on or about said date» the latter delivered it to plaintiff; 
and that defendant, aelezny, had knowledge of plaintiff's purchase 

&tii i'if? «oJ:,JOE «» "ill Sal.!!! Iff sto (J^sros 9if5^ y**" «»3f©l:T;>© ■n^^ insm^hul 

X<S feas a&vXoJafaaalS lo tafcto suit ot ^Mnx^q tSSOX «I »imX, bsisb 
\m.}inwt toq ^8 'io e<t^^ atf* vt.3 ^asto^wi ^ntrtw^cf .bsmtobaji eieii^ 

8« «\;ns&X£»S •© Eliot o^ b»^i»vlj:a& &as b&isjo^xa feftBrfsiitf Tr©r£ &ii«», 
8fiB.£iBsriq alu-jftoQ Bilti Oct gjaxY^vaoo fe-^sft i!S0%^ lilMt «o»^Rinc;f 

X^tjioiiS'i'i 'Afii' I0 -^^i^mnoe X««fp® *rf^ tot htm &»©& ;tsws* feii<!S «i 

b«flU3n <>slfl «jBrf5J3H asawT. «§s;*5X «*S t'^awaat ism€^ to n<> ;tj3ja[l jo^cisxfij 
»#<»£ no<ittor> isi9i*s:isii lo Tcoblorf bos 'tswf^ saf* a.ww « jaai)flf>l9& J8 efi 

e^on noqjtwo ^ae-jra^tal 'JO'l OI^S^ j»I>j3)S bis<i a^iv^rf ll.tS'HlBXq t:^i 
oa«riotwqc s ''rtitfaiaXq lo »^b»£froxs£ bjsd ,t«s»Xd^ t^fMibnatab ^aifi has 

of said interest ooupon notp froai Bada* 

Th© complaint fhen aliased that plaintiff f isiao kad left 

hie note for ooll^otion with Zele'-ny, rsoeiTed t|ic followiag 

letters from hlmt 

"Sept. 25, 1^34. 
Vr* Frank Krylf 

7203 Ogdeu Ato.» 
KiTsrsidet Ill« 

jM&x airs 

With reference to the interest note in *Jxq amount of 
f 340.00 due Beoemher 1, 1928» signed hy JOBophlne and George 
Brazin&» \ihxGla you paid to Mr* Hada» we ar® ciorry to adrise 
that the present owners of the property seciuring the abOYS 
mortgage interest note are unable to pay the intexest or to 
keep up the property. 

They have Tueeu offered a saiall aum for a jiitclaia 
Beed hut hare refused to accept eaae* There Is nothing else 
left to do "but to foreclose* 

If tlw forecloattre is filed » we believe that you can 
put in your claim in Court for the interest note '^bich you 


In the liieantime* we adrlse thnt you klnc^ly call for 
the note and "bring with you the receipt we gare you for same, 
-orry that ve coiild not collect this note for you and 
thanking you for o ailing upon U8» we are 

Your 3 rery truly, 

John 0. Zelezny & Co. 
By John 0. "elezny.* 

"January 25 » 1935. 
ttr. Frank Kryl> 

4151 'I. asth st.» 

Chicagot Illinoie. 

i)ear Sirs 

Kindly call at our office at your earliest aouvonience 
as I want to see you in regard to the interest note you hold 
belonging to the first mortgage secured by the ^jroperty at 
4117 W. 3lBt Street » Chicago* 

Your^ truly 
John a. zelttzny & Co. 
I)j Joiin G. I'.eleany." 

"June 34 » 1935* 

Mr. Eryl, 

7208 Ogdea Avo*» 

TiTeriside, Illinois. 

Bear Kr. Kryl: 

lith reference to the interest note which you paid and 
now hold» X wish to state that at the time X notified you to 
call at our office and deposit the note with us so thp.t we 
cotild collect Bomething on it» you did not deposit the note 

» i,X i. * i' Iss 'i y V iii 

ii w...'i 



'< ?ar.^wtfr?j>:T ?itf# rrt 

tea mlt 

►8s«j: «3e ^fiJwtt^T.*' 


.f-fv ; < 


tiTOMtfU Saxe .i^ V£X* 

t!Jt?,ir?f .tM 

siTx^ '^ '^««'C: 

with, us within the tisoe specified, and -although the matter had 
Tceen delayed sereral times, it is now out of lay hands • 

It is through no fault of sine th^it you are tinalsle to 
collect anything now, "but through your own neglect of not 
accepting the proposition vv^hen it vt&B offered you« 

It vill do yo u no good to c ommunio ate with any depart^ 
ment and it woul d b e up to lfir» and Mrs« Bada "li"" tEey o aire t _ o _, 
pay you or not, hut th.ey cannot he forced to pay th is interest* 

Tours truly y 

John a* Zelezny & Co* 

By John G* 2jelezny*" (Italics ours*} 

It was further alleged that on or ahout March 25, 1935» 

Zelezny *well knowing that he held the ahove desori'bed property 

in trust to secure the payment, inter alia > of said interest note 

numher fire (5) and well knowing that the sa^ was held "by this 

plaintiff, and wi^s 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 a release deed, releasing all right, title and 

interest to the a"bOTe descrihed property hy Tirtue of the ??,"boTe 

mentioned Trust Deed" and that the said release deed was properly 

recorded March 29, 1935; that "this plaintiff suffered hy 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» 192S{'' that the aforesaid defendant, Jsaes Rada, and 

his wife, heing well aware that plaintiff's interest coupon note 

had not heen paid by the makers thereof and "well knowing the 

purpose for which the abore described trust deed had been executed 

tm& delivered, did procure the release of the said trust deed frcn 

th» said John G. Zelezny J" that Bada and his wife thereupon obtained 

the conveyance to them of the property involred by the then owners 

of the legal title thereto, free and clear of the lien of the trust 

deed; that Hada and his wife "did thereby participate in the illegal 

and wrongful act of said John G. Zelezny, Trustee under the above 

Trust Deed, and did benefit by his said improper acts; to the 

damage of this plaintiff in the sum of * * * ^240 * * *, plus 

SOjti J.y >t;; 7 '.UQ'., . . '."'.:■ 'Loo 

ei'OJR ^fir«r£9tiil 6.±i38 'to tj^£Xg__T9tftx «ifnr©isr':(r tj-T* sirt/osi'! 0* izisti ni. 

noi*aXoiT «i t&ih <*io;?t7!rf* BT:oi.«?is fflrf# rjJ fc)X.:;^; j ;: a::?'^ fens » lli^olisXq: 
Birf? 1:0 si^Kgii hw^tl i-r , v®^s<<j:rT ftJt^v; wiwb alff to 

feos eX*x* ,^rfsii XXs s'siseeXea « 5«»»b sajp^sXa'S /^ »(rao«>3E© , 11li;tiacJ:^;Xq[ 

©rf;J Yrf bo'xa'tlwe fitialsL, .^ .. > .9X «es doi<3U bobioos-x 

BRjTEl iSijY * * '^ 1:© <«^«« e£;J ijs Jaa'xa^.isx awX^ « Oi^n# * * *• l:o 

•^oix coqwoo ;fe9T;eiai a^tlliaJualq, i&di ®^je?wj9 XXav/ ^eistf ^s'tta aid 
mT^^ saiwojmC IXsW b&si toax&iii siissfiM sii;? yid" bimq mt^d tea b&d 

beaij&ido aoquet&iii aliw ^M bos b6»s ' t^aseX©.^: •{) nriot bt^n ^iii 

iBSJti (MfeJ lo wtsiX ari^ to assXs 6Ke f>eir!t «fii;t»t$d* »X^l;r Xsa»X sdi to 

XiSsaXXi: ©ri;5 ni 9*aqcxoi*xsq; \:<f9^«jilS bib" ©liw airf bix» <i!)j»« ,tsrf* ife395 

svcMfs »fl* 196CU «©*aitrxT i^xsbsX*!^ »^") is«£oT. 6l«8 io ^o* lal^ati'm bn» 


Interest at the rate of * * * 7J^ from December 1, 1923." (There 

was ao serrice on either of the Radas aad the nv±t was dismissed 

as to them on plaintiff *8 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 ajid xmpaid when he as trustee released 

the lien of the trust deed given to secure payment of the note 

is olearly alleged in the complaint. Ths wrongful release hy 

a trustee of a trust deed securing an outstanding indehtedness 

creates a priisa facie right of recovery in the holder of the note 

evidencing the indebtodness and« inasmuch as the law infers damages 

from eve:^ Infringement of a right » it is not necessary to allege 

that the security is lost to the plaintiff by being in the hands of 

^ bona fide purchaser or to allege the insolvency of the makers of 

the note* such matters being material only as to the extent of the 

daioages. In Wertheimer v. liana » 277 111. App. 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 p» 392 i 

"Defendant argues that plaintiff has sustained ae damage 
because he has a ri^t against Charles Stringer f 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 Lennartz v. Estate of Popp t 175 111* App» 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 facis ri:.^ht of recovery in 
the plaintiff. The law infers damage from every infringement of 
a right. McGonnel v. Kibbey 33 111. 175» 179; Bren t v. Ki mb all > 
60 111, 211. The burden was upon the defendant to overcome the 
prima facie case made by the plaintiff.** 

See, also, Lennartz v. Estate of Popp , 118 111. App. 31? Harvey; 

V. Guaranty Trust Ge , . ,» 236 Iff. T. vSupp* 37. 

We think defendant's ccmduot in releasing the trust deed 

was olearly a breach of trust on his part as trustee for whioli 

he is liable to plaintiff ia an actioa at law* 

#&»«©*£':, TA/o a"{5f saw 'itIifiilaXq &M!iT 

JSbaXiifWiM fc^fl *ns6ii9l9fc^a*f:t !>!*» noliatup at eioa noquoo 

Tgef ®aa©X#'i lui^m'm ajft' . ;f ixi^Xqtao o ©jcI^ ai he'^ells isX^««»Xo el 
©^oa e^^ "io *3C9&Xoxl «if* al -^"soviooQn "ia itigii &l^&1 snal'xw a asdssrto 

qjS.^ "iQ tssaiXB ©fls? ©* as vXi«> L^iiBiSim siiiecf at &***>& xisi/s td*OH 9sii 
uiiJoa tm *«£9ife' «9as .qfA •1ft V^ ^Sfflji?) .T _^5«led J'tcaW al .assaaFs?) 
»a^aXs»^ XalsiKJ-xw aid 'tol ^XX^^Hoaidq a^j^ssart* sii^ taitijasa *fls0»tef e«w 

•aftBtcft Off r*!ft.!,nt~3;f« rsATl liti^ai&X^ i&d^ isj^p.t.s JnefenslsO:*' 
■^s^j : , . ?jiloo?»-^ ydi jcci ^f-H^vr proT^ ;*or'>+ f>rtn 

JSjS^SS-® «^^® *-^'^' *-^'^-'- ^•'^"'^ tgc^o^'i ,10 

10 ;i; ■ xt'^'yr'Sf a© •■•J ssg^i.. erf* 

<,il^,^i±- *'' ^Jij£§ '^^'-'^ *^''^-i ••^-^■'- '••'• J..- ' '■"■ " 

iloMw Ml ©s^RUTi Qs *i:J3g aid ao J-awrct lo xCoasttf js y.Xit«9Xo gs^ 


Defendant*s major contention, however, is that plaintiff e 

complaint contains no prayer for specific relief aud that defendant 

being in default the trial court vmder eec. 34 of the Oivil Practioo 

act was without jurisdiction to enter any judgment. Sec. 34 of 

said act (ill. State Bar State., 1935, ch. 110, para. 162) prorides: 

"iPrayer for Relief. Frery complaint and counterclaim 
shall contain specific prayers for the relief to which the pleader 
deems Mmself entitled, "ucli relief, Tfhether "based on ona or more 
counts, laay "be asked in the alternative. Demand for relief wMch 
the alleg' tions of the plsadin;.- do not sustain, xn8.j he ohjooted to 
on motion or in the answering pleading. Exce pt in case of defaxilt,. 
tne prayer for relief siiall not he deemed to limit the relief oh- 
tainahle, hut where other relief is sought the court shsll hy 
proper orders, and upon such terms a.a may he just, protect the 
adverse party against prejudice "by reason of Burprise," (Italics 

In 60 far as we have "been ahle to ascertain, neither the E^upreme 
court nor any division of the Appellate court of this state has 
heen called upon to constme the foregoing section* particularly 
as it affects judgments ¥y default. The ohvious purpose of re- 
quiring a specific prayer for relief in every complaint is to 
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 a default to "be taken, if he recog- 
nises itB validity and does not deoire to contest the claim. In 
discussing this section in the Illinois Bar Association's Illinois 
Practice A«t Annotated, it is stated at pp. 72 and 73t 

"Most 01 the codes provide that the ocmplaint shall con- 
clude with 'a demand of the jud^ent to which the plaintiff supposes 
himself entitled,' Clark on Code Pleaciings, 138, 180-187? Pomeroy 
on Code Kemedies (4th Ed.) Sec. 327, and notesp Phillips on Code 
pleading (2nd Ed.) Sec. 301. * * * 

"The complaint and counterclaim shall ask for the specific 
relief wanted. The general prayer of the equity till is no longer 
eano ti oned » i^ere the defendant defaults, compl ainant c an have no _ 
relief more f avorahle than tha t demanded , hut where defendant 
submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, any relief 
Warranted hy the facts alleged may he given, whether prayed for 
or not. * * * 

"l&ider 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 formiaation of the Civil Practice 
Act, however, it was "believed that an opponent is entitled to know 


eoLi^^r-l Xirif erf^ ^0 I^S .c^a isbui:! tt««.s iBlf* siC* *X««^i. Mi a«i^rf 

. . ,_. ^-ratGO t^^-«"l»-i^XsH Wl •EJ'V^TE*^'' ■:_-'- 

a«ois Tf? ':-.*r . 1: . ,r.,. ,.:-> r^- ao 


adcjiaXqiaoo eboo tfatwa lo ' ki' ♦'* * ♦xsioB.s-at oM;^ ^ol 

what use a pleader proposes to make of the faoto alleged, ajad 
if satisfied with the use designated* to rexaain out of court j 
and permit plaintiff to proceed, knowing he will he confi ned jjo 
that use. " (italics ours*) 

la eaaes of default, under the plain tenas of the statute, 
a apeoific prayer for relief is required in the ooaplaint which 
"direotB attention to what is wasted," and it is only Just and 
equitable that a defendant who, having heen apprised definitely 
of what the specific demand against him is^ peri&its himself to lie 
defaulted, should not he subjected to a judgment "acre faTorahle 
than that demanded" or in es^oess of the amount of the damages 
claimed in the complaint. It is true that plaintiff* s complaint 
was inaptly drawn and did not la so many words or in precise lan- 
guage contain a specific prayer or demand for judgment against 
the defendant because of the matters alleged, liut it did specifi- 
cally direct defendant's attention to what mt-B wanted and the 
amount of damages claimed. The ad daEnua 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 i'orty (§•240) Dollars plus interest at the rate of 
seven per cent (7^) from December let, A» D. 1928." 

We think that, while this language was not in stx'iot ocn- 
formity with the provisions of the scotion of the statute under 
consideration as to form and technical nicety, it did constitute- 
tute in Eubstanoe such a specific prayer for relief as the act ccm- 
teiaplated, in that it advised Sielezny in unmistakeble terms that 
plaintiff sought to recover from him dams.ges to the extent of |240 
and interest thereon, sufffired as a restdt of the illegal and 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 and, 



ti '■■■ ; • aSM ad:* xf J ivv bex'lsid/i.i; 11 

«s;Jji/j'i:j !": siii? lO a2i-Xf«* fiiPlq; arid ■Xfuhau «?Jlijr.-." - :',i98flo cI 

^. ,r . • j;;95^ ^i »£0 a&iow ^v«ia oa fii «©fl Ibib &ej8 SKvcib \li(iBai ssv 


■'•■-.CJiM , * , rJl 'SSCfiaf»0»Cl OtO'X^ (^V) CfnSO l..,; SX<i\^<)B 

~ano v^oiiiui Ki v*-oa a^vi- 9s^w|jfi.?X bM;^ sIMw tiarf} ^aixld n-' 

■•■->r. :> ■■ ■ «'■»+ cK 1»±X(^'!' ■•'^"■- '■:'--\;««Q si^lio^Mia js .rfaiin 6otus;t a^fira Ki #*ff- 

.' -„.,:; J aX«f^i^4. 


oas ^a:::!^);; 

without sacrificing uniformity* to subordinate form to suTsstanoe. 
Tlie complaint adrised defendant as to the specific relief plain- 
tiff wanted and the exact amount sought to he recovereds and* 
inasmuch as the judgment did not exceed that amount » in our 
opinion, it was properly entered. 

Howeyer* we are impelled to hold that in riew of the 
fact there vas 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 he sought against hlsp Zelezny being in 
default* the court was without Jurisdiction to enter such 

Such other points as hare been tirged and the cases 
cited hare been carefully considered* but in the Tiew we take 
of this cause we deem further discussion unnecessary* 

For the TeHBtme stated herein the judgment of the 

circuit court is affirmed* sare as to that portion of the 

judgment order specially finding that '^malice is the gist of 

this action*" which portion is reversed* 


Friend and Soanlan* JJ«> ooneur« 

..; ■ ax iim!i>ssm tssii foaeoxt- Hagbx/t ari* a« dftJOBe^fii 

• fos'xe^iis v;jCisq0'sq - .oi«jf.q;o 

• Xiesasisstnmf floieauoBift ♦.rsxiiJ'ar'i laeab aw <=>iitiBX} nidi to 
;^rr.-t '?o ^ndEi^bwf, &si^ ai^x&d f)9*«*a sflKJa-asi •£!# ttt'K. 

' noid-i'og: d'M;? oj e-b sy.f^o ,&&!«; ills ai ^J'luoa ituorlo 


Appellee f 

TOY Rcsrat oum kxjsg Toua, 

laias CMng K\ms fu* alias 
Chin,'? Kun Yu; TOY KTSrCr and 

Appellants • 


29 0I.A. 5 99' 



TMs appeal eeeks to rererae a judgnent for #2>000 

xeadered Hay 19 » 1936» in favor of plaintiff i^Besemswelgt sad 

against defendante* upon their election to stand on their affi- 
davit of merits after it had heen ordered strioken froei the 
files on plaintiff's moticm* Although it is not bo alleged 
in the pleadings f plaintiff states in his brief and it is not 
denied that defendant guarantors were stockholders and directors 
of the Canton Tea Glairden Company* 

Plaintiff's statement of claim alleges that "he is the 
holder for ralue of two first mortgage gold bonds signed hy the 
Canton Tea Garden Company* hearing date the 1st day of Deoemher* 
1923 * * * in the sum of |1»000 and $500t respeotlTely, payable 
to ttie order of *hearer* on the let day of Jtme* 1931* and 
the let day of December, 1931* respeotirelyj * * ♦ that said 
bonds were duly guaranteed in writing by the defendants* said 
guarantee being on the back of said bttids [then follows copy of 
defendants* unconditional guarantee and their signatures to itli** 
and that "by means thereof each of said guarantors are liable** to 



'-\ '•■iiT ; i'' ■ CKJ.a :■ ?£X-rj'; 

aTo^roo'slb bOB Bia^XQjiattHJ^a 0X»w auo^is^X'SAtB ^as&«a1s»!!) i^i f>*Xneb 

6x1;^ X^ 5£;ngJ:a a&joocf &Xes ds^sti^^is #a<a;lt ow^i 'lo (6USjsr rtt tsUltui 

^xedniiiQ&a to ■^a6 tfaX ad* •*«& s«i*'*»<f niiixsqaroC aafeTcaC jseT jao^ajsD 

©Xrf^fC^JI «xl»vi:;fo0q[e9i sOOS^ &XEa 000, X^ l6 iMja wA^lt at * * "^ f.S«fX 

;s/t<=5 tXSex t&m/C to y^ ffi£ ajiif a& 'iteijaftrf' 19 its&xo •£» 0* 

biiiB $mij rj;X®Ti.:>oo<j:a0'x «XeSX «X9«te«©8G 5© ■^jah JaX erii 

''l^;^! 0.1 ^^tttii rtK%Xs "iletdi baa oedjausrusi^g. InoD ti Xbuoomt *miasbaali9k 

plrantiff for the payment of the principal amoimt of said toads 
and interest therem* 

After diaclaimiBg Imowledge of plaintiff* b omiership »f 
th0 Itoads desorilied in his Btatemsnt of claim and of defendants* 
alleged guarantee of the payment of same and reqviiring strict 
proof thereof f defendants allege substantially in their affidavit 
of merits that oa 'Decemher 1* 1923* the Canton Tea Garden Ccmp&ny 
harinc signed and delivered certain first mortgage bonds, including 
these alleged to hare "been owned by plaintiff, executed on the seme 
day as security therefor its trust deed conveying its leasehold 
interest in the Canton Tea Qarden Building to the American Trust 
Hi Safe Deposit Company as trusteed that Toy said trust deed there 
was conveyed as further security for the payment of such l)oads 
oertain personal projierty, insluding all the equipment, fixtures 
8Sd appliances in the Canton Tea Garden Building evened by said 
Canton Tea Garden Company, as well as the furniture, fixtures and 
«t1^r personal property used in the operation of the Canton Tea 
Garden Bestaurant, all of the value of approximately ^7§,000j that 
such personal property v&s sttff icient in value to pay all the out- 
standing and unpaid Tsondsj 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 ni^t become due for the use 
and occupancy of rmj part of the premises oovored by the Canton Tea 
Garden Company's mortgaged leasehold, with full power and authority 
to collect such rente snd disburse seme; that the truistee immediately 
entered into posseseion of the premises December l, 1923f pursuant 
to the terms of the trust deed; that the Canton Tea Qard&n Jompanyp 
the principal debtor upon the first mortgage bonde* executed and 
delivered a eeoond mortgage on its leasehold interest to the Gentrsl 
Hepul3lio Baxflc & Truust Ocmpaaj on or about June 23* 1935f that» 

»no»t@Jii 3-asi©,-t«i raw* 

ihrffbrn^. ti.»di ftl YXXaiiitata*«8 «i«XXj« aif/i«Bfa»t<»l) «l:o®«oiif# "ieai^ 
>ECMW5ra;«8 a&b'SiiS^ aot KO*fi«i) eiS;t iSS^X tX rr9«fffls>os»ct no *j8ff* a^i-xon lo 

«jaB8 •JEW HO f>®#tfo«3C9 « "ili^nl^Xq xcf 69IX5^ ao0o' oit* 

sfeHDtf riooa lo in&taX'Cyq »iii ?o^ ^^rJ-l^oro^B TSfiWiwl a^ fcsiCevROc caw 

a«««*.zlt ,:fflsMrii/po 9ri* IX s ^rflWXbnl tT*^^*^®''^ leaoateq «.is*T:oo 

btmt Tgtf &»i!S»rQ S«ifeXi»ff ft»&T:«^ ««T 11(5*18*0 erf* JStl a»«n«lX<?;g;» hsta 

lift tt»«tftol% «'9Vf<f iirxut 0{f^ as XXew «t« «'Ctt»ipD»t$ norHTjesI^ sqT adcPrteO 

^M;f jO0O*»^^ X£fi&*mkx30%q,q:» %© s»X«v »rf* 't» XX« ,d'aB«ir«*B9H nsfctaa 
-iwo eil# IXiK xsQ 6J '&isLp,r «1 *ii»i:oi"i'Ji;« »,s»r t^T^ofOT^ XaHoei^acr JtaffB 

66S} ^as rot ©srfe esKJO^^sf ^MfeJba dtfMw vg mt(> ttsAt a#i1;oit xfjaX 

aoT i!K>*it*o ^j[^* "iccf &(9^dvco a»aiiii»tq: *it*' 1» t-iwi -v^aB to xsiafiPNii/ooo baa 
VJ:rt©iiii/£ fuSiS ■"taitr*^ Xiir't adEtiw t &X«tt{»«.s?8X b^n^itoa e*-v;x»«i«i©!:> h«biafl 

«'^ciBQ;&K>'[/ £U»J;t%iaC ■{}!;!»!}? flOiemO &Mi^ ^jtiid^ (l^«*i> 4'scrXvt €>di ^d Barta^ «il^ oj' 
baa h&ttim^w t3b««>tf ©sAsl'xoia iati't »A^ iM>^ TO^tfsb Xi>q iociitfj sit* 

JEfi«*B8»ft ftjS^ o^ * 8©it»j?i!ti; bX®jcf»«fl«X etii ao 9>]„v.:4'xc!ia foftoooa b bo'xoviXob 

although this aortgage was sub@e<iU6$nt aad subordinate to the first 
Bortgage* the trustee imdex the trut>t deed eectixinfe- such first 
moTte^se stood lay and took no action ^hen the junior nortgagee 
«nter«d into poaseBaion of the preoiBea BMd collected rents aggxe* 
gating ^5S*O0Ot which aiaotmt was sufficient to hara paid all tltie 
outt^tanding \)0nd9 Boouxed by the mortgage; that the trustee* not- 
withstanding its rights under th^ f tr ct uortgage trust deed* stood 
■J^ in 52ayi 1923* and permitted the Art Institute of Chicago to lery 
upon the personal property heretofore mentioned to ©atlafy a judg» 
»ent obtained by it in the Municipal court of Chicago against the 
Canton Tea Gsrden Ccoripany; that suoh trustee, the Aaerlo^m Trust 
& Safe Deposit Companyt paid t49»000 on account of general taxes 
on May 1» 1*J33, although it was not liable therefor i tliat aaid 
money ahould hava beon usad by it for the payment of tho first 
aortgage bcaadtj aad» if it had been yo used, -^^ould hire satlefiod 
all the outstmiding claiias on the bonded indsbtedneea | that the 
trust dead contained a prorision giving the trustee the x'ight to 
foreclose in caee of -iefault, but» notwithstanding such right, it 
took no action to institute foreclosure proceed Izvi^i ^*nd that eald 
trust deed further provided that, if the trustee refused upon demand 
to in£3titute fereolosure prooeoaingap such ri(^t accrued to any 
holder of unpaid bonds* 

Itefendants contend that their affidavit of merits stated a 
good defense and ^atitled them to a trial of the Issues presented 
by the pleadings; that they were entitled to prove the value of the 
security i^Moh was wasted or lost through the oonduct of the trusts* 
and have it applied against their liability as guarantors upon all 
the bonds outstanding and unpaid, Including plaintiff* » bonds} that 
the value of the security peraitted by the trustee to be wasted or 
mi8e.pplied was greater than the aggregate of the outstandinjo, bonds { 

booi« ^fe^iQ^ i^tafxf os#aiteat j-»iI1 naf^ isfefuj- »#i%lT »*! fnif^joa^arlSlw 

-fj-xyj, a "^si^Bit oi h»smHn9m »r6l«#9i©ii t^«»5o*C XaJfoc-sa^ «>il^ wo^u 
ox?;! *Baiss« «l5.e»irft) t« ,fr«mo Xjaq;i«>lmM *rf# itl *i x<f ftiiataJd'o cfnact 

\::tf bts>ua aei^tf i?vail blt,'eu'ia ^eccoa 

f)i«B iMi* bsia i«f5iBtiB*«nj«r£f «TtfsoXo»'<i:9% »«&#.t*eiisl e* ttriissr. oil sro«# 
a, „,,..... -r. ^,....... u^...,%...^ ^«iitsixi «<{d lJ:.,t«M^ lEjofelTOiq ^(nUixul h&»b SRori 

.3fci«>cf blaqtsu to r.^bloi{ 
cii.v; w ,'^.i.,.. ..;:., .^vi,...i b„ bsXtfi*JX'.5> «♦£©!» T5«tfll S^jfJi ?a^«tibQ»X«j oAi ttf 

that tlw r«laa6« l»y th«j trustee «f secTarlty t'lrae^i over %& It by 
ik« iu'lsaoipH'.l «*«l9tor r«l«sB«N3 tla* ^ar«ntw« pre ^anto i aad tiba^t 
t^e aoiiott of tlw trwBt«e wader tlie trunfc deed ia bo rale&eiair 
tJi^ security maat 1»« eli%rg«<S a^laat t^? beaa,«il20ld@ra f9r whcas amXd 
true tee aatc^dl* 

ia«.iBtiff*e tlxeftiT is tSiat tli3 fjrridavit Of m&Titn of 
defendARts "^feis laauf f la lent aM &i<S no* stAte & good deftaase bo- 
eause (1) the ln^)t3L^ulle&lt «s^ae4 upoa tfas an alas>aittt<i» uolialtdd susid 
vmaondltlDo^ guarantee and tUa ^-uarani;0X8 tOM^ar^toa wvree liable 
JLr/.eiKsadontly of «u*y rlijht oi* the iiolder to pursue oollatexal 
tcourltlea; (3) the txustee \mder tlie txust deed Beottriag tlw 
P«yn:d»t of the bond a i^as a ^fi;aoljt»al to the txanuaotlen ttad aot 
an %re>st 0f thn '^xmdlioldsrd} suaa (3) tixe i'ailur« of tte trust«« 
to una '!lli£;<gaao« in tlut enforoos^ut of feiio rigkti^ graoted In tlio 
irttfst dee€ did not amotmt to a '<^ast« o? 8Ll»appllc«.ti(n of oolltttoral 
eeourity by th© plaintiff » 

It is imdlsputed that the i];u»traknta@ of def«Mnt%8 to p«gr 
tlKa 'bend& exttcutod and is&ued by the Canton Tea (l&v^&n CoBipaagr 
SeetmbeT !• 1Q23* was unlii&ltcd rend absolute* anu it ±a the jreoo^r* 
lilted and est&bllBhod ivda that the liability of an unecnidisional 
Caaxsntojr beooEt^s independent and fixea upon the lailur«» of the 
j^lnclpal g^btor to meet tho obllijatlan x^ii^a it beoosofi due* fhe 
guar^njitofw in the ln@tant oasse w&iTOd notlee of nonpayment* desuyod 
and 4l0liionoi and upcoi ths »ort|{acoar»* defaiat in the .^ek^metil of 
ffa^ pxi^^iD&l amount Of the bonds* as weU &3 the Interest th«reon> 
mrhioh beoxtte dU0 la 1V31* it beooaae their duty to issaedlately pay 
su^h bonde and interest* irreepootlre and Independent of what 
aotloo plaintiff or the trustee teolc or ul^it hare taken agalnet 
the princlpel debtor or the property 'jwav^^yed as security by the 
intet deed* 


*d^ ;&i»i'sia?9» fed«& i&a-xi tali t^hm 69imt4 '^m'W iH^iifmom 

9»n'^Mn& «iv^ '^o .*'ifa-.u^a »m U) »fcj& je«s«&JE#ia.ii»tf ««f* 1* *K»r^^ «« 

,:iai't«a • raises; .%13 .i>^ -9^^ iKWtAf .?ill« 'lC«(iI»ilailt Ms» 

-t *■ -^■^ 

:*;:-5 ;:;ftno^ ■iiii^ 

iB Holm Y. JaMdefc-on * 175 111. 295, it ^?s.s held that tli« 
fact that B c03rporate note was declared "by a oourfc of equity to 
"be void for want of authority of the treasurer or the coi'poratlon 
to execute it did not release an ahsoiute gusirejator Iroa lialility 
as againat a pona fide purchaser from a banki which had disooimtwd 
the note solely on the strength of the guarantee. 

*^ fargan t» Pjalter^g 90 111. 160, the court aald *it p4 164i 

•♦Thfe j^araator heooaes liahle if the taoaey is not pai^ 
coGordiag to the tei^ms of the guarantee. Or osToey v. ^cinner » 44 
111. 521. By the terms of this guaranty, no ter»s ?;ers"iEipoced 
upoii the appellee thai he should bug the laaker , or do any other 
act; he oould resiAin passire, and the guarrjitor should hfira looked 
to it oeiore Cramer left the btate, tiir.i he liad paid this note." 

Huoting frott %e, }xpi £ v. Keidy , 145 111. 488, ia l yaela er t. 

Eau» 207 111. 116, our Suproae o&urt »alu at ji* 124 1 

lere the* payee of a pr(30i5.ssory note or ■'^Mrd parties 
execute a contract written on the Isack of an unoonditional 

prosnisBory note for the pa3,7nent oi" money at. & epfjciiicd tine, 
in v/hioh they guarantee the payment of the proBlssory note at 
maturity'', tl^.e holder of the note le uiic'er ito olili^/r.iion to iVmand 
payment of the maker and on defaiilt of payment notify the guar- 
©.ntors. The :fftr-.son ic; ob-ri^us. The contract of the {Tusrantors 
iQ ab£iolute and uncoxiditional, and it reiiUiree payment by the 
guarantors upon Riaturity of the note. Tbis rule i--^ cletrly laid 
dov.'n in ga pe v. mecha nioB* ilat . Ba nk of Chicago, 79 111. 62, and 
itj well sustained "by au'ihority". Tlie principle upon T»hich this 
doctrine reatB ia that uhw coiitract la abealute, and not oondition-> 
al or collateral. * 

It thus appears defendantB are olearly liable en their 

guarantee unless released from such liahility by plaintiff or lay 

his acts or o<»iduct. It is agreed that where a creditor has in 

Ma hands or po£tBeseion some security or pledge for paymait of a 

guaranteed deht and he performs seaae affiraatire act or fails to 

perform a duty, which conduct on his part destroys, \7?PteBor 

injures the security, th& guarantor is released at least to the 

extent of such deetruction, waste cr in;1ury. It is net chrrged. 

tja dRfendants* ansvrer that any cf the security ~aB in plaintiff's 

pesseesifm or thpt he dir^^tly p*»rE5ltte^ its w=if5te and aisapplieation^ 

>ut that the trustee aoting an plaintiff's agent perMtted t^e lossy 

«oJ;;J'S'SO<j'xtK . ;.j«iiaici' taitf 'io xit'iotiii. ;iov etf 

. a^^^a^ajsxy^ 04^ 1« i£«Ba9ff a «f{^ ^ ^•Xe» »;t'on sd[4' 

bi;«!?[ .few «.': Y'^^wpt ?»K# 1.^'.X assaoescf ^o^^CiiXBir;, sa'T" 

'.■><»X *q is &ia« ^'UT'do awKJ'Scptr'S t«<» ,SXX •lit V^^^:. t»j.-.i 
<iL<.:. • 'i^'- 10 »*o« 'i ton a III?:":- •• >> a9X»5 (-^-^ ■•■••~?f^' 

basm'^b o;i- xtoxJ;:;3i.I^fo on i&buii aJ: . , , .. _' .. , . .. i ., .■ -^ot 

"tfijr^j 9rf3 xit;^*^K ;f rtocniBQ: "lO SXweisJb no baa I'j^am mii 'xo ' 
B'xodfiaxsJT^ Qsii lo *ojTj:*aoo sjiT .sf/oxTtfo fix xiott.jftu a.-'T 

afl.t 'vicf tfaaijx^jjsq aoriiWiJei ;Ji fafixs tXi^iSOi^tlftficoci:; uix« . ax 

hlsl ■y:X'".''aaXn ^.i o.Dr-: -;j:rr" .<^/,toit nrf* "^o v.-t ";tf;:t..-:a n- >•■.'; ms^ 

btxs ,Sd ♦XXI 97 J ' ,.-ob 

•^nOxJ'X&itOD Jon baa fi)iujLi»iiUii ^1. vOii'£.^ii&u >itdn smi^ ux aout^x uiixiJ^DOb 

•'«Xj3':e5aIXoo 'xo Xs 

Tiiari* HO sXrfBlX 'liX'XsoXrj s^ja aiJitHfenslsh a't,f;©<j;<ia Bioii *X 

X^ xo TiiinXBXqt t£</ ^dlXitTaxX Aotsu cwtl £»e»as9X»TC aa»X«« ^stiaiaxBU^ 

jB 111 itrretivr, r)goej[q -10 -^^iTMoss SMSKsa flciaasaec.; i; .'iisfl sJbcf 

r->»5.G9Xt .sH'S six[.;f tx^i-mo .'■■ i^tutal 

irastd or misapplicatlaa of tfee personal property and rents sasd 

inecone of the premiees conveyed end flssigaed as additlon&l 

security under the trust deed and that Euoh loss* waste acid 

laicappli cation ?>: 5 in v?-ltie and amorant »ore than sufficient to 

pay all the oute tending xmpaid tsodss including those evmed and 

held l»y plaintiff. 

Was the tmetee plaintiff* s agent in any sense that ia^osed 

recpon;?ibility on ^-jlaintiff for such trustee's oulpahility or 

delintiU5no7> if any? Defondaata cite Killer ▼. I?utland & ?/« K» 

Co. » 36 Vt. 45^ » snd quote extensirely from that portion of the 

opinion x^hich appears farorahle to their contention that the trustee 

under a trust deed it? the agent of the hondhclderfe for all puirposes* 

"but an examlnfitlon of the opinion discloses that the court there 

went on to nay at PT*. 486-871 

"te do not hold, nor do we asaent to the position taken in 
the argxanent hy «»ie of the couaael for tha uuf :;adiui!*a » '^ fcT^it 
the trustees have» \mder their trust* any agency to dii^chargep 
change or compromise the aeouiit-y *.Mch l):iey hold as trustees. 
They are not general agents of the "bondholders* hut special} and 
limited to the legitiBiate j^uii<0B6 of the relriii'-.a Lliey suj t iin to 
the security and to the parties entitled * under the trust with 
which they are clothed. *.^iy ^ot or oiai'.;^:ioG of bheirs, vherpfore* 
whether in "bnd or good faith* outside the scope and purposes and 
legitimate incldente of the trust, vjouIg affect other parties 
in their rirhts under the trust, on the score of the agenoy existing 
in virtue of chat rcl&tion.' 

A trustee may also "be bhe atjent of the laortgagee or the 
Gtmer of mortgage bonds, "but, when hs isi his R,<=fenoy is created hy 
an exprean coxitiact ox* agreeiaent or hy f?t.ctB and oircumstancos otter 
tittin the :::jrvc insertion of his nsae as trustee in a trust derd 
secuxins a mortgaeo. The rule is well settled in this state that 
a trustee, as such, undev' a trust deed is not an agent of the bond* 
holders but a principeJL foud the representatlrc of both parties to 
the instruaent. 

^^ £213L ■'■• ^iobcirtaon, 174 Til. 24?,, diseusalag tli« status 
of a trustee under a trust deed, the court said at p. 25Qt 

hum Hie^'X hast Y^t^qoTot I«H»e"tgi<j--»^: ."ie Jao.Jt3«oiXQ.4-4jeifli xc ^i&BV 

on JimiQltXas w&i^i hitem imj0tti& haa »jfl<sv at «/>■«? m>lf&t>llq'^Baisa 
btm s>4^ii»o ©aoii* Mfti&tfloa.t «3J»f®tf f»i«cfx^ :.ijtiafl;s*ii;?DfO Affdf XI« x^ 

•sa t,-^1X1«!m|1ko a ♦eatajsr?:* rftasria la's-, "ill .■?».! ^.f-^pf** r-^t ♦.C?{f^'"ffO(Tttot 

s^j&i;-. , ' "ff :^ so a tiSii m tied* r,* ^Iff^sTf-r?'^ f?-r.'''*»<Tq''- rfotrf-- aoJtxiiq.8 

diaf£,t ,lTiroc ^i i&i^ a»s9J[s>al& fic fajtac)? erf* In iw.fJrf-teAxr^ nr, ^n^ 

feitr, < ' ', ■•^ + Iff 

^ ttx. 

'■- ;;;■...:. '■ fjlf^xxy nl 

mi J TO 9t>'_A,. ■ u^.i' 'c,-'"''-^ ;;.;jd Jij-.ti A 


"He was equally the trustee and r8pres*>nts!t,lre of "both 
de'btor and crecitor* He was appointed by the de"btor and derived 
all hie power iroia the debtor, mad wast of ©ourFje, the t.nist^e 
of the debtor. e have fret-iUently held a trustee in a trust 
deed is the repreeeatative and trustee of both the partiee to 
the instrument; that his relati'mi JSist "be absolutely impartial 
ae between them; thet he must sujt fairly toward both parties, 
and not exclusively in th^,- inteiect of either. (C aaaidy v. Gook t 
9^ 111. 385; Ve ntree v. Cebb t 105 14 • 33 1 WilliaffiBon v, .>tione» 
123 id. 129.)" " ■*■ ■" "" ■ 

^^ ^^hi^e V. Macvi»eeny 360 111. 23 6 p approving the rule 

stated in the Cferay case, aupra » the court said at p» ii47> 

*The rule recognized in this tHate is» that a trustso 
under a trust deed is the repreaentatlve and trustee of both 

the parties to the iatitruiiient - the ra or termor aa ■■ell te the 
Hortgagee or bondholders > and that he oust act fairly toward 
both parties to the instrioaent and not e.-clusiv^ly in the xnta est 
of either. He is required to act fairly to the delttor or those 
having derived title froa the debtor ?»nd who hr^vc an interest in 
the property pledged*** 

Under the facts alleged in defendants* affidavit ©f merits 

under the trust deed 
the trtt@tee/20uld not have been the agent of plaintiff* .-Ma. agent 

owes all his loyalty to and Biust act e^sujlusively for the interests 
of his principal* 

The amount of the bonds issued* Y»hich included plaintiff's 
bendlStdoea not appear* hut it is reasonable to assuae that the pur- 
chi^sers of the bonds ox such issue lived in widely soattered looali. 
ties* some pasaibly in dlstaat oitiea» and it is preposterous to 
urge that they should be held accountable fof any alleged neglect 
or delinquency of the trustee* ijefendaats who* as has been hereto- 
fore Btatedi wore stockliolders and direoters of the Canton Tea 
Garden Coapany* the principal debtor » undoubtedly attached their 
guarantee to the bcmds so that they could be more readily sold* 
It is fair to assume that the guarantors were on the psresLses and 
in intimate touch with the oocurrenoes averred in their affidavit 
of merits, and it eoeais to us that if the trustee was lacking in 
diligence in the performance of its dutieOi they rather than plain- 
tiff were to blame for permitting said trustee's misconduct* if ai^» 
to continue unchecked right under their eyes* 


©Xui wiiii aalroiJiq^ «J 

yxfi Si:; I' 

X:3 aj-o,.-! 9Xii t- Oils' 

* .i.4i»^ - ■ ■ . -. ~w 

$ooX"^sij &©s9XIi3 \;cu* ^^ oX<f.«^iw©»©i5 l>Xa^ &tf feXtforfa X&^i i- -' 

a®T uoia.>0 ej- ,XofMoo*a s'xow ,b«MfiJ*B oft 

tX«.B "51 ^iTOirtiWooaim a*»«ia*fs;4 ,.::ii.oJiso:r)q toi SEasirf od ©-saw 'tlii 

»9V%» tlsttd lohtm t^tx b»ite»fIomT ©iml^itc-o o* 


The general taxsa paid by the trustee constituted a Ilea 
Buperier to that of the truet deed aad it is idle to urge that 
the trustee was reoreant iB itss duty in paying thea. The other 
iteas of olaiffleri waste occurred after the date of maturity of 
plaiatlff B bonds and not only oould the guarantors hare proteoted 
themeelYes to the extent of the security in queeticm) hut it was 
their duty to hare done so hy paying the money dus on the "bcMade 
and heing suhrofjated to the "bottdholdero* ri.-rhts in rm.6 to ^^xch 

We have ooaslderedi such other points as ha^e heen urged » 
hut as we -riew this cause we deem any further dlscueeion unneeespary* 

la our opinion defendantei affidavit of serits did not Btate 
a gocjd defense and the trial court was warranted in etrikin*?' It* 
Defendants being in di^fault for want of an affidavit of merits 
stating a good and stiff icient defense* the jud,p8ent was properly 
entered and should he and Is affirmed. 

Friend and Boanlan» JJ», ooneur* 

,,^,., -. .iKBs erf* niitf.*n -^^' ^^^^'^ ®^^ ^*"** "^^"^^ 

: iii;^ waif »v< ^iffl w'Wf 

tn-t5X««o3 ^a fefflwlt'S 


Qmtm iifAL IL'lMOl'S ^AtlQSAI. BASK 

AiD rru:iT a^Mi'A»Y or cHic.^ao» a 
natilomkl l&^uikltt^ «««0(»1? iioitf 
trustee under as3r«e»»Bt datod Jiine 

U&, 2X13 » 


▼ • 

WAlTifi!^ a. Kl«3^ai «t al«» 

j COURT, GO-'K G'^rM'fr. 

isoi.A, eoC 


mm ^lasTiOE yBiaiD KiLrvsR-^'-D tas oFuim m tm ccjoi-tt. 

C«atlAttatftl IXliaolss MatiaoAX Bank aiui trust Cmts»3ay» 
ftft in»ti««» l'iX«d a MIX to for«oloe« th« XI en of a truat 6«i&d 
semjurini; n prlnoipal a<»t@ for fO»0OO «HB»0ttted \ty d6f«ntiiNiitts« 

Wiklter C« Bielier azuS Berotliy B* HielMyt hie ^lf«» who w«r0 p«r- 
soBftXXy senre4 with prooesa* The trust dsotf pXed^ed th« r<»nt»* 
i«eii*s and profltn ns auldltlaoaX e^ourlty for payBont of tiM 
likdebt&<iisf»»ii scoured th.®r«^» Th» o^^asplfsdnt w».« takoa yro o^<sgifegf-o. 
l»y all d«fendsMntft tmd m decree of f ^©aloeure aod a&Xo was »nt«r«d 
Jun« 2» X934* paitsunnt to tho r^iiort of the aaa^^t^r to wheaa tbo 
nattor imS 1»o(m i^nerally referred* The fereoXosure deeree found 
^lat there ^ae due ooaipl^^lnaat f7tOXBaX8» together with Inte.reet 
wad ooetOt cutd that the truet de«d wae a T^Xid XI en upua the ^ 
preaiees therein deeerihed ee weXX as upon the r^at«« lisouti@ and 
jorofits thereof durlni; the fuXX |>«^rlod of r<tdeii^tieiti« The deereo 
aX«e provided that In the event of a defiei(?xioy arising fron the 
eale, a perisoaal deore© ahouXd he entered agaiasit Hleher aad wife 
aii«l agnia^t th« r«at»» isatM»» aad proiite fr<n the preHtsee durias 

ML'.ki o. 




> Xr 

H ish», I 

■ ^ifi »m 

. , - ■?♦*•?!>■■•?• 'JT»aoX©-s7,^ *.lffn^/*'*irr TjL£»»<»«t*!«i «»•# *jb<S 'mUsm 

saut^ fi©qi? »9iX NiX-ftV 3 a^rti^" ^^■■-^^ :*«jn;^ «d4 JjmW *>«» t«#«i«£i &ini 

»««««fe :-TfK' „t^:- • K.<^afti, _^ ^, .j..{ ^{iitiffi l««»tM4 «#l'te»t:q; 


thtj period ©f r*»<^f«ptl<m. ay th® «leey®« the aoiirt r^^talaed juria- 
<SioU«»tt for th;« eiitry of i>uoh further orders as might l»e neeea^iary* 
iaaludinfi th« appoincafcsat «!' a receirer f^r the ctolleetioa «f rents 
durini>: the r«d«.«pti©a peri<»4» Upon sal« oi^ the jiroperty lay the 
isa»t«Xf pursuant t9 the d0er@e» tho presdites »«r« bid in by oanpltiia- 
ant for '^d^O^'OB leavlag a deficictruiy i^ tl»2d4«40* .'ift»r ieiaX« eon- 
pXcdLnauit wu/r9f4 for th« entry of <m3 order &{> proving the osCLo* for a 
defioi«?jaoy ^^eor«« Ag»la»i Hi«b<?r and wifo of I^ltg34«40» f<Mr tho 
aprpointia^ttt of a rooelTor {during tii« period of r^d^^^mptioat aa^l* ia 
tiifl! ftltematiYe, for a rule «m liieh^^r and wifo to paiy tho fair reatsd 
for the pr^aioos durlxig the period of rodss^tion* 

Upon hairing of the so aotioas» Borothy B, Hlebor ^jfpe$iTin6 in 
court snd testified in offeot that compiftlnant had |mroh.'\aod tho 
prijaoipal aote »»o«r«d hy tho trust dood frOH Jotea F« i^aroh 6^ CsMpnityy 
martgeiigo brokeroj that after deftnUXt under Uio trust ^«^ii defeadi^atii 
attoraptod t0 0«eur<ei a loan frooa tbe Hoae Ownora' Loan CorporsttieKQ 
and obt«tined oo«plairumt*& oonsout in writing to nooept $6t?89«36 
of ^(uadHi to oov^'r the principal and iatereet then due* and a oorued 
oxponaos} that after an appraiaal of tho prnnittmu by repreteeatatlToo 
of tho H* 0« 1<* C«» the latter offered to ioeuo to ooBQil&imii&t 
|9»36S of boada ia oxtin^iulshiaont of tho anount duo o(»plaiaattt» 
but tho letter deolined to «£eoept aaid bonds unleea tho aettlMSont 
vmi& euptsleraented by a oaeh payuont of $Biy^» and eonoequently the 
loan was nev«^r ooasuimisj&ted* 

After hoarlnj; thle e Tidenoo the ehanoeilor entered an ordeir 
approving the oale of tho presdeoe to oonplaini^nt for id*O0O» bat 
denied the motion for the antry of a df^-fiolenoy decree against 
Hleber «ad i^lfet denied the motion for the aprjpointaent of a r-wcieirer 
'luring the period of rod«fflptie8J and also for a rule on defendants to 
jpay a fair rental for tho preaiaesduring tim period of redesmptloaa. 

«Nl« f^ '^i^'S?"-,-, .., -:? *X«a a»<;8 •*«.Jtii:««i issox. ^.- .--.rrt/f-' 

M «Bl <»X*^s ■!?!««* ak^^^rou.^ sjes Tab to or, !;«>, iRa^is* audi -s;*! ftay . 

;*'l.j '>*l «:^fr»lv:<^tX* "%» •!>» biE« t*«<f-«>jSJ» jr'»«.i«%e sMiito*^ iiitw^iiisi'tsb 

,..,. . .V ,. jtiws^ •. .^■.... i».-.. -.•^.■>. .■ .-..- -.-. .-; .- . .. w6!al©iil"t« 

mwmr» »iigta ims^ mAi i&m&tij^l Mm X^^JUsuai-^iQ «if# %»▼»«> ^it siiamii' lie 


complainant ap eala tram ti» ordrr dunging these moiioaii. 

la Jtt«tifie"tioa of the e«urt»s reiu»al to «nt«3- » ^«fl«ieiiey 
<}«Jor«« a'^id foy tlu a9polat«®nt of a r@«eiTer, defeadsmtB' ooim»»l re- 
lies j^rin©! pally oa Leyy y« Brj^tfvt€ty-Oa«s«a Bl<}g» 09ry»t 273 Ill» '-pp* 
393* That «aa«» howRTftir* pr«feentB eaUr«ly dlffewat eircuBstBtances. 
An extended hesiTi^g was there ]3a<I ae td th« fair atarket Tf^lun of th« 
Mortgstged pir«al«4»s ejx4 uixm <?'Ti<^«me8 aM^dueed th«! <^(iu^o«llor foaXld tlM% 
ih0 eale price w&n grossly inad«qu&t« as etmpared with t)i« essts^^llssted 
T»luQ of tha prop«rt7* t efussd to aozifiitti tins sal« and ordered a 
resisle of ih« property* ^ motioa for loare to appeal wie sulbeequeutly 
allow6<£ %y tha :^apr«a» seurt» aa(9 in aa opiiiloa fllad ;pril 6» 1937 
l¥at not yet published) apprered in prijaoiple vthat wne said liy tlie 
appellate court la the ^ry ▼• Bsmdwfsar<:.ii.Timn Sldg:^*. , ^-- .^yj p * ease* £«s>ra» 
httt htld th&t the »al@ prioe wa£ ado^uate. the i^'Uproa^ eeurt reached 
the oonoluaitHX that ehe»i the ismoimt hid at a »a«ter*e eale ie tto 
l^resaly inadleqtts^te thint it ehoeks the eoniicienee of a court of evuity* 
it is tte ^aneellor'a duty to diaapprove tho report of enle* aiu! it 
said "there ie little or no differenee hetween the euuit&Me Juris* 
dloticad and peeer la a ohaaeery ooitrt to refuse aj^roral to a report 
of Bale exx foTf^olomure Mid the povrer to fix* la advaaoe* a renorred 
or ups«t prioet as a i^nianm at \«hieh the property 39Bay h«^ edldf* that 
the essjao 4u<*i^lal powpr le InvolTecl la either aotioa and *^*i*at is 
aeoeesary to he aoae in tim tmAt •> prersitt fraud aaaci iaju?. tiee» " mgr 
he feres tailed hy prefer judicial aoti^m in the heifttming*" neither 
of th^ee oenelueions hare any he!^s.riag upea the oaeo h^form utst »iiioe 
the ohonetellor in this proeeeaing cSi d la f aot^ Q-PJ?.,yi°y,®, .^ . .'*^!t* Ths 
Sioly i%u«£ti(me pr«»sented for our oettieider&ticm are iKheUier the eouri 
9wrm6 ia refusing to enter a pereooal juigtaent againiiit Hieher and 
wife, and whether a reoeirer should hare been appelated to oolieet 
the rents durias th« period of redemption. wither of thaee %ue»- 

■■■--■^ ■■•■■--■.■• ;.^' '.<:>'w;r.r:. ?:!^«^■^"■:■■■Tr ? T v^YWS'ftll iWIMMl t«^ ,.8VK 

%i&aa WfiB raised or disaussad in l.trry v» Broa dway -Cjarm^sn BXdgr_» 

IAnl«r th« ooaditional dtfioienoy df'crsf^ eulcresd liy Use 

esurt pri«r to th« annter's u?!**, oomplaiAant \ms eatitlcf^ to a 

}P«r89nal JudgBteat araiaat Meber and rife after th,e aBOunt of tlue 

d«fi6if?xtey urns a« terminer ♦ Tfee ri^t to a deficicnoy <Je©2»e« im«t«y 

theBO clrouBu-taucisB do® a not ^«w out of geatxal c<iidtal»l» priitoio 

flen, "but li fouaded upon the legal obllgfttion ef ilM nmkQTn of the 

mortgai^o. It Tsa^ «o hold in '^Ifi, v« I-l.otm<?.j S60 111. App. S69» 

wKereln the fereolostire had proceede<> to sale* leaTlng et ctefioienoy 

Of C'lf054*46* for -which cos^plaliiaat aislceo Ju(*ipi«snt* th@ ohsnc^llor 

refused to enter a defioiaaiay iudgtaeatp holding that tho eoKplaiausaitf 

la suTiordimiting the mort^f^g® therein foreolosad vilthout tho defoiid- 

aat*e oOae^nt to ©. EUbeecuently executed first MOrttrsge for tSfOOOf 

rolse^ited the defendant froR pereonal lialsility Va the noto* On akpp«i&l 

oomplaiaaat ftrguod that ho w&a «atitled to it. perstmal jud^eiit on 

tho gonoral oqultiee pr»9entodt 'but th« 'sotwt in affiroiiis tlio Judg- 

a«nt snX4 (p* 373) t 

•♦The right to a p«rscn*?l Jud3jm*snt in for<5cl03ur« prooaed- 
lugs does not rest upon fieu&ral equity priaoiplee» Imt upon th« 
logal olaliK&tioa of the a»k«r of th«<« note*" 

Prior to the enactraont of oeo. 16, ©hap« 9i(Ill» ct«t« 

Bar '^tetov* 1935) the aortge^oe was relo^ted to hio i%otion at law 

to Ohtain a judipaoiit for ai^ defieienoy that ad^htt l»o dtxe hin aftor 

the Bale of the Mortgaged preMsost Inst ninoe the ffiaaotetont Of thlo 

otatute a di?floiency decree nay %9 rendered in the fereolosuro pro* 

eeediag for any halaaeo found to 1»« duo the ocmplainant 9vtir tmd 

n^ore tiio prooeods of the oalo* In construln/^ thle &itatut<r^» the 

court* in uj g^eQtcn ▼. Morriso na 18B 111. 977 » oaid (p. 579 )i 

'*v,Mle %im statute mthoriseK the decree to he entered 
coiKiitionally at the time o* decr«s* ing tiie f oraclofeure » its only 
effect iu that of a finding that the complainant i» entitled to 
a personal decree for auy half*nc© t;hat uiay "be due aft«r the 
applie^-titti of the pxoceeda of the sale** 

, :-t*-tof'OTo 8Qi^Jt«|>» X«T»«s«!s efid 

-©ICQ *ieifa«X ©»'««■ 


^X «.«®EiSl^ "■* iA 

V u .1. 

■..:(© 3 

The rule !» well evtatellatoed tfeat K*en ttbe report »1 sal« 

8h»w8 ft d«fl0l«aoy after %h» «atry of » de«r»ff. of forecloKwro aa^ 

•ail« finding tteo defendants psrsoaally lial»le f&t tdto iad«tet«<la«»»t 

it Is th® duty (^ tlte court to rend«]f p«7»flttftl Jud|g»oat agRittVlt 

the dtffsHdsdats for the defioi«noy» II ■mkn no hold ia ^Iflisy y» 

Byt^^ t 181 111* Ap|j'« 54 1 "cDhere tit&e eowrt* la AffiTwlag tho (mtry ttf 

ft d«ficienoy 'ieor«« ag«iB»t defendaatOf s&lA (p* &7}< 

"fthen a defieit wa© ehawi it Wi?tB the duty Of tho ciourt i© 
ronder |»«r8««U!il ju^d^MHftto AgRlnat the plalntl/f in etrror ciBd Tsk» 
eo«>dRfontf«ust8» ^o had nomoww} smd n^reed to psny the mtnttmm de^ljt** 

Tito ooaoo eonolueion "m-u r«mb»A la Jo^aead^ t« .;4l8 0ia ^ 155 ill. App« 

505 1 where the ooart» ia di^^svusHlng the propriety of th« <mtry ef 

tho d«fioiisaey Jadifftftat ftgi^lneit tho def^mdctat* »aid (p. 30&)f 

"U'o thiiilc that "iils^mi vae exititl^d to a ^udi^emt a^^-ainnt 
70%'Beoad for tho amottsit ef iHm deficit* '^'ileon bad a ri^t to otto 
%t laiK at the 08»e tlno ho hogiui his I orf^oloimrct suit* lOtd ot»tMia 
A Judg»e»t at X&ta OTOa i9t tlna %>hol%» d't^'bt* uad «^ »oo uo r«().aoa i^ 
hm oould uot tako a ittSgrnmit tor the d'sficit In tho ehimoery oourt 
limii^diately %fti$i- ^h» d«fioit !» knovja sft«r tho oalo*** 

l?h€! CBUl^ othdiix qu«i»%ion lnvelY«d io liirtothor oouplaiaaat wks 
oatitled to tho appointiMat of a rea«lirer aXtor oaIo sad dcjcxioi^aey* 
Heldiog aa or do that ecstplsidaaat wr» ontitleo to a def loltnoy tieoroof 
it ould follow tliat it would also ho entitlod to tho appointM&'xit of 
a re-solTor durluisr th» p*?riod of rndemptitRi* JLthoit^ it haw bBwn 
hold that tho ooux^ a^y ox«rol»e aone disorotlwi ia tho i^FpoiatiK^at 
of a r^NsttlTor before «»lo ( yrai^ ▼. '■i^pel a 263 111* ■\pp« 316) oad 
tako lato aeoouat tho emiitioa %otw«N»a the partioQ> iacludin^ tit« 
Talu© of tho property pledged to ««cttr«s tho ds'ht* wo know of no ©««• 
«hioh Yooto the oourt with suoh di»eretiwi after oalet wteor© a dofi- 
sleaoy ie> ghown* Tho txttot deod la this pro@«@diag plodgod the 
r^atSf ieatteo tuad profito aa addlticsaal cecvirity for tho iad«*ht«:-aaea!5» 
and ooMplaiaaat w^is therefore ©atlti«d to ooileat the rf«fiei«*ticy 1^ 
»e!itto»tr»ti«a of reats through a roeelYor dwriag tho period of 
rttd«nption« ( tri^t t. Gar.o, m 111* >.pp* »3»l atg«a» v* Byachoag^ 

tims. »n[> bl>i)« 4tfirieiir»%ip|> cod' f««ia^Mi tinr iMHii tw| fjna Apilaifc i<>^ 
him t^lua! n^Mi . ■ dS »«»* 



r/?i& ««s 1© 'sflftejf aw .f^f*?-:^ -,<■ 

.t«>3te«ta tv «;«.^^. ia«8 •qgiA *,ui W-* ,i» 

■atm tmU Stiver ti^hbs 


242 i3.3l» Ap|>. 1221 T o-»m0eri d t. _iil»iH» lf^5 111. --.pp. 30S.) 

In Ij.linj3iB_Joint_ :--toak iJmd Saa'ik of MeaUo eUo r, I^ag,^ 

273 111. A-)T>. 34 • an app^ftl wwt takarn fr«»i a dwcree 4«i3jiln4' th.® 

appointmeitt of a rcooiTtr ia a fareelowur* praoeediag ai'tor i^^axiMi 

and »al8» and aftdir th« o<mrt liad «& tared a dofie lensqer jurifs<t^t* 

In r<»T9rslag ?ya«^ Tfti»indin<? tii« cautie with Instruefelane to »afeer ea 

©r^sr for tto« appoint»ent of a r«Qt;iTer» tlw:^ court said (p» 3©) • 

How^rer ©orry a oourt miy be far a farmer or any etlier 
person i^Hm i® losing hie property tJsrou^h foreslosur«» the well 
«ieta'bllshc!<3 priuclpl^r ©f Ir - ofla:iop.rnln£ foreoloaur© profj«!*dlnsa 
oatmot 1»e orer looked* and t>i« oourt has no pov^r to ehaago th« 
terxEW of th«t JsortgE.|r0 contract. e ■beliere the oircuit ooort 
flSQ MoveialJiir It 193S« emd before the salOt had full po^«r an«1 diis- 
crastion to set aeido tlie iiiitial ordor provi^ia<r fs^r a rec<^-iTor» 
TBi»t on Deceuiiber 7, 1932* fif tar the f©r«clo6»ir«} si'.lm um the entry 
of a deficiency Jud^^saeatf thr? court erred ia denyin^^ the appli- 
Ofition hy appell&at for the appointaBoat of a rtiof^iror*** 

For tho raasens stated horolnt the orders of the oireult 

oc>ur& denying the motions for tlw entry of a defioieaey decr«!e end 

the appointment of a r<ReeiYer will be rev<£rs@4 and the oatts@ ro- 
naiid«<S with «lirt etiojfiie that & clefiaieuoy decree he entorod for 
oomplaitiant for SX»aa4«40 agaiaaot iSofendaats* ualtcr c« Higher m4 
i^orothy B* JSieher* aad that a reo«3:iT®r lt>« appointed of the ;|^e£ai0^;a 
foreolossdt l;o colldot the rtsata» ie^uoe aad profits ther«ol' durijag 
the p«»riod of redeaption* 

^jittllivaB* ?• J»» and aoaiOan* J.* ooaaeur* 



Appellant > ) 




CHAKL^ H» LASQISR et al.| ) 

Ap.elXee». ) 2 9 I . A, 6 0^ 


Uary B» Walton, widow of Seymour Walton, in her own ri^t 
and as assignee of their children, filed a bill in equity to sat 
aside certain agreements executed by Seymour Walton in Ootolser 
and Hoyemher, 1918, relating to her interest in the accountancy 
partnership of Walton, Joplln, Langer & Company, and in The Walton 
School of Commerce, a oorporation, and for an accounting* A 
general reference was had to loiter S. Holden, a mai^ter in ohancery» 
to determine whether complainant ie entitled to an aoco\inting« The 
master's term of office haTing expired pending the hearing, he was 
appointed a special cammissioner and as such filed his report in 
January, 1933, nine years after the hill vr&e filed, finding against 
complainant on the principal issues and recommending a decree dis- 
missing the hill for want of eqxiity. Upon hearing, the chancellor 
overruled the exceptions filed by complainant to the report of the 
special commissioner, approved them and dismissed the hill* Com- 
plainant appeals* 

Counsel for the respective parties have filed hrlefs oena 
si sting of an aggregate of 482 pages and a reoord of 2,700 pages* 
The principal controversy arises upcm the facts and the application 
thereof to the relationship existing between the parties* The Blaster 

-^AA?fe /\ T ADO ( .asf^iXf^crqA 

^83 o;f Y,*iwpo fii XXicf a BeXil ^nonblMo ix&di 1:. „„._., .l:,, ; ; 

tiOilM 9iVS ai biia ,\;nsqEioO & ts-Qtifil ,jttlXqoT, «oo*Xs^^ 'io gMwa^ci^cjsq 
A .gaid-m/oooij na ^ol baa taoli.B%oqT0t^ a taorxajsnoO 1© looAoQ 

iiiiw ©jri; sgiixjnstxi sii* a^i'Jn^'J ftoii^;© 3civ,sxl eoi'ilo "io m^ei a'«i3;*aaffl 

«1 ^teoq[arc aM beltl liex/a aa bna isnolaaJtiaraBe© XaJtoaqa £i bo^^ixioqqa 

Manias* aittbiii:'i <S)eIi:5 aaw Xliti' ©rid- •es^'J^:^ s'X.q&IC s^-^" tCC&X t^atrxucL 

-Bib ©s^osb fi s«ib«Btai3osei him a&mi^i S^^^^&Rixq, &di aa ias3ni:«XqflS0o 

TCoXXaonsrfo orid' t^ni^^jsri floqlT ,\^li3po tfi Sosw xol XXirf »di gnisaifli 

©fiJ lo ^f'io^s'ic &Lii oi irtafsJLGXqiaoo foeXi:!: aaoWqsoxs sii* feeXwiaavo 

-aoO » XXicf &di b&ssimslb has moj&i b©T©"iq<3[^ iiaaoisairaiHoo Xfsxosqa 

• 8X«teciC[A (tnanljeXq 
»ti«o «l©lu€f bsXil srsji a9±*"!Cfiq avi^toaqss'x adi io i XssmroO 

«oJ:*fi»JtXqQ:.e ©rfi bflii eJoist sid^i mqii aeaiis -^aiovoTcfttoo XjsqionJtiq; oriT 


filed a^a unusually comprehensiTe report* containing not only his 
ultimate conclusione of fact» "but a detailed analysis of the evl- 
denee, the contentions of the yarious parties with referenes thereto, 
and the considerations which led to his conclusions and recoBaiaenda"' 
tione* The salient factsg as to which there is auhstantially no 
dispute* disoloi^e that in 1908 Seymour Walton was sixty-two jaare of 
age. Prior thereto he had "been for nearly forty years constantly 
engaged in business, had twenty-three years of "banking experienee 
and ahout fifteen years* experience in the practice of publie 
accountancy. In 1908 there was founded at northwestern Unlrereity 
a department known as '•The School of Gommeree^" and Walton, althou^ 
having no prior teaching experience, v/as recommended and chosen to 
teach practical aocoimtanoy in the new department. In 1909, Langerp 
one of the defendants, then thirty-three years of age, was likewise 
engaged to teach acoountaaoy in the Horthv/estern School of Commerca. 
Prior to 1908 Walton had heen 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 Waltony Joplin, Langer & Company, for the 
purpose of engaging in pulslic accountancy work. There was no formal 
partnership agreement, but vtnder date of April 27; 1910; a memorandum 
was signed hy the three parties reciting that the partnership was to 
"begin May 16, 1910, and was to continue for a term of fire years# It 
provided that Jalton and Joplin should each hare a drawing account of 
#50 a v/eek, and Langer was to draw $45 a week, provided the income 
warrisinted buch pajfments. The profits were to "be divided equally among 
the three • 

3ome time thereafter the three men organised a school for the 
teachinfe of puilic accounting, which was first operated under the name 
of "Vvalton School of Accountancy". January 13, 1915, the school w».s 

-<s5H&jKi3KJ0tJti bn/.s c!«oJ:a»ionBo aM Ow' beX doliiv. axto.Us'sa&iiajnoo &tii ban 

to asia©^ a^^-'Xix:: .uoiyjyso SOiJX ni lajij ©yoXoaib ,©^uq.8Xfe 

•^l*«ii5axa>o K^ii®"^ ^;}^io't \Ixbbss 'io'i nsecf barl aii oiai^iU lol'sfl ♦d3« 

0JtXtf4f<i 'io a£iJutoi?'xq arii- ai aonal'ioqpcs 'axsex K»a*'ii"i dt*foof.s baa 
-^E^xB'xavJtflR/ atr»#s9wri;f:ro% *« {jd&rajo'i esw QtisAi 80QI nl •TcontsiJmroooa 

tfl|iaC8iESH;t ttjetg; a feectrcol; aem Q&xtii »e®ii* OX^X lo •^^ai/iqB mii nl 

#1 ftBlEissY Q'wxl '-•-^- • tol awxiio . ,OI(^X «• . .^iSdr 

lo 5ja/ooojB 8«JwjBib a sv^ajl xfojRe foXworfs jaiXcto'& bttjs ne*X«>/ ^Atld- foobivoicq 

»flX> out 9tii , , A<8 WfJTft O i SAW 'ISSfl^il bfis , j£9©* B 08$ 

gfltOfitiS ■yXX-qwp© be&jtvib scf o5 otsw ad-iloiq erTT «8*is»an2-» i'ak;tcti«w 

0il.t -sol Xocifoe £1 fteaxaagTCO noia o»^«{it oiid 'S'si'tB&iodi omii s&io'-i 


InoorporSted, with a capital of #60,000, each of the parties suh- 
soriTaing for one-third of the stock, all oi wluch was ccamon. Tlvis 
stock was paid for "by turning in all the aseets ot' the Bohool as 
conducted hy the partnership, consisting of copyrights aad contracta 
and only little cash, 'felt on and Langer had eertain copyrights on 
accountanoy lessons standing in their respective naaes, and these 
were asEigned first to the firm and then Isy the firm to the cor- 

Ihen the school was inoorporated the three parties signed an 
agreement v;ith the 'felton Sehool of Accountancy, a corporation, which 
was intended to afford a hasls for salaries to be paid the officers 
of the corporation. It prorided that if the acttial profits amounted 
to #6,000, or less I that the whole sua should he paid in salaries} 
that, if the profits were "between ^6ji000 and 1^9, OOO per annum, the 
salaries should he t>6,000, plus one-half of the profits in excess 
thereof, and the halanoe was to he paid out as diridendB; if the 
profits for any year were het?reen f9,000 and |12,000, .^19,000 was to 
he paid in salaries, jsmd tlie "balance carried foriivard and included ia 
the profits of the next year. The agreement further provided for 
progressive increases la salaries and the declaration of dividends 
if the net profits should exceed respectively $12,000 and .f'15,000 
yeaJL'ly • 

January 2, 1913, the three individuals enterec* into another 
oontxact with one Isaac E. Holl» which provided th* each of them 
shculd place in the name of Holl 60 shares of his stock, to he voted 
hy Boll as trustee in accordance with directions contained in a cer- 
tain agreement, marked exhihit "A*, and that in other respects the 
Btook should he voted hy Roll as he might thereafter he directed in 
writing hy the other parties, hut under no circumstances should he 
so vote the stock as to render of nc< effect the terms and conditions 

aJ'jWB'Stfiso a "aim nfd'^tx-^Qo to ^^Htfal^aco ^^Mat&aitiBq bA» xjtf be^offbft&r- 

no a^iisit^qoo ni^^s^-ia© bail tcesfifjJ b£ts cio;?X,aifv' *sist&& s£iiil v;IttO bras 

3a©£l* bras tffioffusit ©vxios^a©^ trieiii ai sJKl&JU'ta EfiotiiasI -^©flssdiuacoo^ 

bfifiviosaa sinoxq £sstitjs 9sii li *«il^f b&birorq tl .uxotiBtoqtHo tsuH to 

Eseoxe «1 WlloTq: srl^r 'lo tl3rC--9iio Qi;X<|« 000*8 if »cf &Xtforfa asiifiXjse 

0^ ajgw 000,e# t000,ax^ btus 000, et^ ««sw*W ©tei* tc/is-v; -^afl rto'i e^noiq 

,;t.! f5of.0lbrii brie MB#'a>1^^6^^ &Qast&€ itsii bim lasirsalse kI foi/jq ocf 

'abtt9bi.rlb I0 aoliBtMlo&b ■tHi brer, esiti Xbs ui s&sB&T&tit 9Vi3a»T?s©:tq 
006«SX*^ 6tie 00<^,SXf t-f'wvi^oaqesT &j5et>.x9 bXfc-eria a^itOM d'^n «>!{* 11 

-'i&o ofii.aiaSo atfafilf o«iit> iftl* ♦twtAft^ooo^ al B9&&tmi f;-s iXoS tc'' 


of exhii)it "A". At the end of ten years Roll v/as recixjired to 
deliver the stock "back to the respectiTS parties, and provision 
was made for a successor in trust in the event of Roll's death 
or his inahxlity to aot> 

In November, 1915, the name of the corporation was oliaiigedi 
to "The V/alton ochool of Commerce*'. The follovfing year Walton, -^ho 
had given a considera'ble portion of his time to teaching, as vfell 
as to the husiness and financial features of the schools hsgan to 
fail in health. Ke heoame progressively -worse, and in 1917 his 
illness required his rbsance from "businesB . In 1918 he was present 
at the school only a short time during the spring; of that year, and 
after that he did not return to the school. However, he reoeirsd 
reports at home and certedn work was brought to him, consisting 
principally of the correctioa^leseonB in higher accountancy. During 
all this time, arid until hie death in June, 1930, hie Blind appears 
to have been unaffected by his illness, and he continued to edit 
the student saection of an accountancy magazine and received friends 
and visitors at his home. 

September 25, 1913, Langer and Joplin went to Walton's home, 
where a directors' meeting was held. Salaries viere voted for er?,ch 
of the three xxsxz of ^'^2,500 for the first half of that year. They 
also discussed and agreed upon the termination of the accountancy 
partnership, a change in Walton's salary, and his stockholding in 
the corporation. These agreements were both afterward reduced to 
writiiig. The partnership dissolution is evidenced by a letter from 
Jojlin to Walton, dated October 1, 1918, which set forth the terms 
upon which the partners had agreed to dissolve the partnership. Walton 
wa» to retire from the firm as of IiTovember 30, 1918. Seginning on that 
date the sux-viving m«aabers were to pay him one-third of the outstandii|t 
fees as they were collected, and in addition thereto a certain per- 

h^aml^ 84RW fseicfsTro^i'ieD ®ffi? "io aisusn o£i t«X^'X « larfrjsvolf si 

;;;? ,'gKJWtw*^* o;? emit a hi to noii-xeq, oMjrzmhhxiioo a ixstrtd hmi 

Off iXooifoe at{* 1o QQiuiae'i X*.;i:oneni't bcjEs aaeflisutf aCt^ oi aa 

«*ler VXv?I xji biisi «9a*EOW ^^jXsvxaaeaBO'iQ ojstea&d" aH tdiisind ixt IJtc'l 

s%a9q(i£ bnist aiit «OSex tsiuwl nt di-siQb sM Xi:;flitf foRs .aaii:^ sliii XXjs 
afenslil bsvisioo'i bm? ©xiia^BJaffl y.O'®b^^^ooo« etc to nold'osa rfaelii/ia ox£* 

,sitTseil n^mtl . itsw eiXcjot &h« "Sfti^ttfiJ <8ieX «ft2 39eftB«*q;9ti: 

xaff? ♦'£^«i: iBiU lo 'iXisrf iaiil oriJ ir.ol 00a«'.' ' saoa:^ ©^tii^ »4* 1:0 

•s^qt nJtt3*tt80 a ojaiari^ Hoicfio&js «1 feae tbs*o9XXoo sitsw 'stoiitf sa as©! 

oentage of the net earnings of the fiiin for the succeeding fire 
years, the total amount not to exceed $2,250. For the first yeas 
he was to receire 12 l/2,^» or a maxim«a of 1^750; the aecond year 
\ 10>% with a maximtmi of $60C; the third year 7 l/2%i with a maximxm 
of i450j the fourth year Z^$ with a maximvan of #S5Ci aad for the 
fifth and final year 2 l/Z^t with a maxiffius ejaoimt of |150« Thia 
disfcolutioja agreement was fully performed. V/alton was paid in full 
his proportion of the outatsiading accounts, and during his lifetime 
he receired the proportion of the earnings designated in the agree- 
ment » Shortly JT^fter his death the entire balance, although not then 
dU3 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 
auhstantially as follows: He was to hecome dean emeritue of the 
aohool at a salary of -S,000 during hJ.e lifetime and -.vaa to surrender 
his 200 Ehares cf common stock and accept in lieu thereof 20;i shares 
sf preferred stock, to yield dividends at the rate of 7^ per annum 
hut which should not hare the ri^t to vote* 

Septemher 26, 1918, the day following the directors' meeting 

at his home, .>alton wrote a letter to Joplin proposing a change in 

the agreemeat vdth reference to his salary and the dividend on the 

preferred stock, as follows: 

"My dear Joplin, 

Thinking the matter over, I should feel greatly obliged 
to you and Langer, if the proposition oould be modified a little^ 
so ths;t while I would get no more during va^ life, my wife oould 
have a little more during the few years that she may survive me. 

I propose that we change the places of the stock and the 
salary, that the salary be ;i'.l,400 and the dividend on the stock 

As an offset to the latter, I propose that an agreement "be 
entered into that at the death of my wife, the dividend rate on the 
stock, which will then belong to my daughter, he reduced to 55» 

In this way the school will pay me no tiore than agreed 
for the rest of my life, will pay ij^eoo yearly more for the ccan- 

• ^J3i/?«xsIqflroo arlvf «wo£>iw nid oi bX&q, tAgm tstaev, f' t>KB S «£ 'not e>ub 

9XSW Xoofloe 9ri^ ni cgxttblorCtfooJa ban ^grtaXsa «*iap4X^'V C'.+ 90ft©5;«t©lt. 

s^ to sut 110019 sisisb eamodcf 0^ 8£iw 9|[ iswtollol sxs x^-^-i^^^^^*^^^^^ 

i9ibn©ra;a ocS- ajew boa 9iai;t9tiX aJUf salitfb 000*2? t© fialefi, « #« Xooiloa 

ssi^rle ' OC t09ic9ri;» jjajX fli #q©p&« i»4Ui loo;tK aaKusoo to ««x.(jrf8 OOS aiil 

msaa& idq ^V to s^a::: ©d* |4| ffejasfeifli^ ftXsir<5 0* .,:rfoo^a ^as-xetaiq td 

Ki osfiadc a^ ^ciaoqoiq; rtiXq;ot o* t»a^oX a sic?is? aoi^Xii. ^aiSKjJEj aM *j3 
®f£^ «o 6K«ji)iYXiJ act}^ bus xtaX^s sM o^ ©owat^tftrc Jl44;vf^ii!»ifi8©t£;g« »ii* 

^xiiXc^pli xaofe %iA" 
&»Si.Xdo \;X^ ■■! J.dd -^KiliitMf 

.>.'■.. :; atiw :■ sXxiiw ii:di OS- 

©If* fexx^ ioojfa silrf t© ao^Bio: oi^# »aitsifa 9*4'' imii ©eo^o^tq I 

«^a o;i ftBwrb^w: ««f »^3i?jJsW/3f) X^^ o^ S«oX»tf «9j^* XXiw tloMw .afoo^'^a 

ft»oi-ijp. rtfirfit ^'lOH on e.' ■->" acT* ysvT auli al 

p8.r£,tiT3ly short time that she surviyes, and will pay |400 lees 
for all the future. In ail protalDili ly tho achool will "benefit 
considera'bly in the end Tsy tliis plan, and in the meanvmile I 
will feel much more comorta'ble in the choutiit that I am leaTing 
my wife in good shape. lUhe money she will get from t;he school 
will \)Q virtually all Uiat she and my datighter >viil hava. 

Do you think my past services entitles ae to thie coa- 
oession? If I had not worked so hard for the school, I T?/ould 
not have broken dovJn» 

If you agrea to tbia I will make an unconditional transfer 
of ay copyright." 

iiovemher 20, 1913, V/alton, Jopllnp Langer andlsaae E. Roll 
entered into an agreement which after reciting the desires of the 
parties to set aside 5":<20,00O of the stock belonging to Walton, 
"as and for preferred stook without voting power," provided that 
120,000 shares of the stock standing in Walton's name upon the 
"books of the company shoxxld Tse and was thereby made preferred stock 
of the corporation, to he entitled to dividends at the rate of 10j5 
per annum, fran Jiily 1, 1913, t* the time of the death of v.alton and 
hie wife, and from then on at the rate of 6-% per annum, payable 
quarterly and hefere any dividends should be declared on the ooaimon 
Btockj tha.t proper resolution should be adopted by the corporation 
to carry out this change in the capital structure, and that after 
the death of Walton and hie wife, the corporation might at any time 
redeem the preferred stock at par, with 5>^ interest. 

Movember 20, 1918, Joplin, Langer and Roll entered into 
an agrcCTient providing that Joplin .-and Langer shoiild each assign 
to Holl fiO shares of the capital stook of the corporction to be 
held hy Holl as trustee for a period of tan years, in accordance 
v/ith the trust agreement of January 2, 1913* XJudtjr date of 
i^ovember 20, 1S18, another agreeu^nt was made providing for the 
transfer of certain copyrights to the corporation} that Joplin 
and Langer were the only holders of common s tock of the company! 
that it was the desire of the parties to provioe lor the disposition 
of the profits of the school and the salaries to be paid to thfi deaa 

iX%ii&ii lls.u Icoilcc; odi ^gj ." ' •, XJ:« al .exuiul oiii LLh tot 

•"jX toa r *,Bi'I;? jjrt'^iijons- £;,:.• .'.;i oiciVi;^'io xskoo ©"jjoffi iioi;,fu Xaot XXxi'-' 

:'03 HiiS «tt,'-£'i ijog XXiw QjrTe •\;9«ojb erfip •{>g;jBX{3 boos ni aljrj-/ i;;ni 

.cTfiff iXiw is^tti^^a Xpi feiie aila Jsii,t XX« \lXBJJixlY ©rf X4U¥f 

S'Xi^ft'iir I tXoodea ed ;> ttol: btflitf «b frsateow ton bad I II ^'nolBaf^o 

*miob nsjlo--' ^- •■■ ooa 

XXo?! »^' QJiBvlbam •so^kbu. ,fiiXqo'G <0o;fXJBW ti^X\?£ «oa latfciiirj-oti 
oris le r;s'r.t!f5s& ©xS* gwUfiosti "xstfli! xIoMvir diJSJKssTiSjB au oicl b^taitm 

tiJii^ &«l>.iTO«q: "et«wa^ attl;t£»T ;J«ofi^iw ^ao^ta battrolo'xq -lo't hii£i ©«" 

^OX ie ©d'ja'S 6ii^ *J8 ajbna&irly o;J b©Xa^i;<Ti9 so" o# ttioiiBZoqioo 9di 1o 

■■.■;& ri04)rXaW 1« xliaafe «ifi- 'io sitiid ©iii ©.^i' «CI';^I tX ^IwX asDil; 4tsmaa& ibis 

'oMsiXsiq ^BSuOiiB "iSQ \Q 'jto 94'bt: 9fl* «.« tiO a&di ssnoi'i. ba& ^allw eJtri 

aoaumv mis ao &9i&Ioab otf bXwafCe abi-i&biviS x^J ais'lad' fens ikX-ssj^^js^P 

asx«a« ^oj5G ftX^rorfa -xosii&l bnr rtilqol ^&di :^atb Irorq tffisassfxg^ fx.e 
^di ';.o"i i^ixitivt/juCi &i)adi <:<«« i«3«i!*®T^« ^iwi^oixs «SX - ■.::?5cfar©ye>i 


and the officers j and it provided for tlie disposition Of profits 
on a graduated soale in the form of annuaO. salaries and diridends* 
The agreeaent also prorided that during the actire participation 
in the management and affairs of the school Ijy the sulasoriberB to 
this capital stock salaries should 'b@ paid to the suT3scri"bers in 
proportion to their then holdings, "provided, however , that said 
Seymour Walton shall receive a salary as dean of said Walton School 
of Comrneree, hut shall receive no salary for other ^ork or practice, 
and his salary as dean shall not exceed 1^1,400 per annum so long as 
he shall live, and for the balance of the year 1918 the sum of #700. •• 

These agreements were suTsmitted to Walton for his signature 
shortly "before ITovemher 20, 1918* Having some douht as to whether 
the final clause of the contract, exhibit "A", which provided that 
he receive a salary as dean of the school of comnieroe and in no other 
capacity, would prevent his receiving compensation as editor of the 
student department of the Journal of Accountancy, ifi^ton wrote a 
letter of inquiry to which Joplin replied on Hovemher 20, 1918, 
saying that it was not intended "by that clause to in any way prevent 
Waltea frem receiving compensation as editor of the student department* 
A special meeting of the stockholders of the Walton School of Commerce, 
attended hy Joplin, Langer and Boll, was held jJovemher 4, 1018* 
Joplin held Walton* s proxy* Each of the parties, including Walton, 
hs,d signed a waiver of notice which stated the business to he 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- 
creasing the number of shares from 600 to 700« 

The stockholders* meeting was followed by a directors' meeting 
i^ovember 12, 1913, attended by Joplin and Langer* Joplin, as presi- 
dent, explained that on behalf of the Walton School of Commerce he 
had entered into a contract with Walton, fixing hie salary as dean 

e^l'trxq: 'io aoitflaoqaife a4i to! ftf&xvo'xq *i: bm ?ai»oillo arii Lcub 
o* Bitetfiioarfwa »M xH loodoa . Tts bias iaeu&i^Afjsa erfiT Hi 

«(?d.tto^l<j ^0 sfsow TOiliJo TO"! x'3^X«a on STi^De-x Ilstifi ;J.ycf teoto^smO to 

a^ ■Ji£«oI 03 tmtii^n x&q 'cO&-^l\^: boooxs :ron IXMa ««»& bjs "^^jI^ss airi baa 

, Ofv lo iKua o.a":^ 8X51 'i^9'^ 9rf;J 1:o ©ofijela^cf aiJit -xol: bna ,PViX IXi^riK eA 

'z«)disiiw oi Qz tftfaob Sflios gnJhraE .eX9X «0f; ^ecfatsvoTl ssoletf xlirotie 

j.f;d3 bij&ivettq xloixft* ^^A'" ildtdxa ttfo&iiiioo mli 'to oets,:£.o XbhII edi 

tosi$i> OH JCii &jru3 ©©noiraabo lo XoOiioa 9r£f "io nssb a^ Y^rX-sa « dvisooi sii 

«eXttX «0a TsctoavoKi OQ fc»Jtr<xoz aiX<40i xIoM^ oj' x'^hspai. to i©;fi^3X 
^rrdTMTig; \;i3W ^hb ai o* oa&JsXo li^iufi \;<f i^abxis^nl Jon 8,«w ;tJ: isiAi -gaix^is^ 

, 90T'i««or; "io looii&Li flo;JJL<3v sxfd 1:o axabXorbloo^e 9x£* "io ^tilin^m Xaloaqa A 

*8XeX <j^ xstfatsvol-i i)X»Jtf asw ^XXofi bsiB xo^smd. tutliiol iccf bobnei^js 

^tiOiDi"}! -^ai-huloal tadii'xjBq sri* '.to rfo-ssS: €'^x0'X<j a*K0dX3^ &Xsil niXqot 

"im'U s'cf 0^ eaajEtiatfd' ©rijJ' ftsirtis ffoixf* saltoct lo 'j©Yi.«!'W jb bftflgia bad 

-tti brw tOOQtQ^t &i 000, 0»f; aseil Xooilot.? miliif-i siid^ lo jJao^a XaiJiq^o 
•OOV 0# 008 aio'j;^ Borjatia to rsamsa Btit gnlassio 
BBitBMK *tn9ioiirib b ysS t^weXXolt a^tw sxil^ssm *aT@bXor£>Ioo*« 9£l7 

~ia9'xq «8 ,«i:Xo[Ol m'la-^asi^ bus «JtXqot •^ctf babKOj*^ t8X6X «SX letfmavoli 
oxi 90T9ni«oo "to XooriOfi HoJX^'^v' frf.-t 1:0 'tlj^irf^tf no *aef* bociJsXqxa «dn0b 

emeritus of the sohool for the remainder of his life* at C?l»400 
a year* payahle monthly? v/alton's stock was to beoome 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 Walton and 
his wife* at par and interest* A resolution ivas 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 life^ at 
an annual salary of $1,400 a year» payable monthly. It was there- 
after resolred that the officers he directed to enter into a contract 
with each stockholder of the company making 20O shares of the capital 
stock preferred stock > and a copy of the agreement was embodied in 
the resolution* 

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. /-J. though v;alton was not present at this meeting, 
he and the other directors signed the minutes, approving the action 
taken. Another meeting of the board of directors was held on 
November 22, 1913, attended by Joplin and Langer* The resignation 
of Walton was read and accepted* Langer and Joplin* s salaries were 
each fixed at $3,500 for the period riuining from July 1» 1918, to 
December 31, 1918* 

It appears frma the records of the corporation that for tbe 
years 1918, 1919 and 1920* the following salaries were paids To 
Walton - 1918 - $3,200; 1919 - ^1,400 and a bonus of $1,200$ 1920 « 
#700 and a bonus of $700; to Joplin and Langer, each, for 1918 - 

|6,000i for 1919 - |12>750| for 1920 - $18,000« 

00*11 £$ *s <^s7il qM to x&bnlBim't ndi -sot looifoa en;t io &mittm» 
berma'iszq 9«»oocf oi s-s-str ife'ooj-a u'fiedHsW it-f^^ncia sXtfa^Bg. *xb»x » 

X/Kiq feXfaOJtIe ©^1.7 airf ftnjs milBt to olil arf^ auitj^b rf©e*a Satts'lsT^ 

snlroiqetfl »J>99«fiq[ ejsw ccUuIoa©^ A .iasis,-»ai arts t^^ *« t^tl* alif 
i^^nJioqq^ bii^ b&iuiljiiaoo .i^'^f mit&y ibahttooQB htm ahiam xi^^ tiiolioa 

Ri: bsibocfirrs) 2bv/ inem^s'xss ai^tf Ito x<l^^ ^- &"* «atoftd^8 bsTtsltsnq ioo*» 

♦ HOxcftrXo^str Qxf;^ 

ftfisSiivib i Itti' ,*mJ8»'tq stW lesKsJ ftna aiXqot dnidM is <t-gntiB»s. 

no IbetsXcot' as«? «OXGX ,DiE iocrfira>*q:!?S siilbfis initsuo otii tol ^'S\X K lo 

,'5rrj:;[90xa aM;? ;f.e #nsas'xc[ ioa. em KO^Xsw ffswod^Xii ♦:^sodHe b^Tta'i&'xq^ sjff* 

■rroivtoja sif^ gfilro'iqqs <esi'ifai«a &di bomivt aTOiJea^lb t«j?ft«> arf^ bam &d 

ISO bXsil 3fiw s-z^iostlb 'to b-xaorf ©xf^ lo -^aki&^m •xsdieaA . nais* 

iioi;tjBasia9i fiiflf risan^jj: bus nilqtoX Ycf fosbxtst^B ^fiiCX «SS ■j9tfflK'V«& 

s-iec^.- asiisXisa u^cxXqoT. bOEi lagirsOL « l)oJc[S)oo« kons *jr91 ajsw «o*XbW "io 

OS «8X'ti'X «X Y,X.y'« ino*3c1 gxiiKnu^s: boi-xs^ o^ rol 00d<s4 ^J3 fewcAl xioss 

.8X€!X -lis 'x&tfEfrosflL 

®T sfiifsq 9tc9» aaitfiXaa ^Hi^voXXot «iIj* tOS§X &n« ex^X «rsX€X ai:B*x 
- OSfi. «C»OS,X!| to istjmd B bm OOi'^Xl - QLQl ?OOStS$ - SX^X - tsoilBW 

*OOO^OXs.' - OK':^l ':.0:: JUCiV^.'.. -- "'"';X io -. : ■■l^tn'v 


The diyidends paid upon ccHmnon and preferred stocks for 
the years 1918, 1919 and 1920, were as follows: Por 1918 - 
preferred $500, ooimaoB - Bonei for 1919 - preferred |2,500!> 
common $30,400; for 1920 - preferred #2, 000? common #26, 000. 

0ctol)er 7, 1919 j approximately a year after these various 

settlements were made with Walton, he wrote to Joplin as follows! 

"■When I made the settlement Vv'ith the school a year ago> 
I considered that it was a fair one under all the ciroutastanoest 
though many of my friends thou,ght otherwise, ¥e did not then 
know what woxild result from the ending of the war* 

Since then, conditions have materially changed{> The $ro«« 
gress of the school has far exceeded any of our expectations* You 
and Langer are reaping a harvest enormously greater than you had 
any reason to expect. Do grou not think that it is merely justice 
that I should also profit "by the success to which I have contributed 
what must he conceded to he a very consideraWe share? 

Ihile it is true that I am not perf oiaing any very active 
duties in coniiection with the school, it is equally true that the 
school is benefitting very largely from the fact that I am recog- 
nized as either the author of the text or at least to a great 
extent responsible for it* 

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 increase in my rent. I shall have to give up this 
apartment or draw on my capital, which is small enough now. I do 
not want to move, as my medical adviser says that these bright 
cheerful rooms have had a great deal to do v/ith my keeping up as 
well as I have* 

Under the circumstances woiild you and 1 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 
annua? With the understanding that if the present tremendous in- 
crease in business does act 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 estat*?. 

I hope that you will both realize the justice of tltis 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 ©f Walton's greater expenses, decided 

that a bonus of ^l^SOO should be voted for the current year and 

would continue through 1920 if conditions warranted. He advised 

xo'i £::Soo*G Jbsrr'XQlazq &iub aomsoo aoqsj .bir^ Bbn&bivib sdl 
lawoXIol UB nxXqoT. o* ej^oTvv" od .xioJ-Xi-W ii^iv/ sfjBin q:i:©w Qta&uBXii&a 

♦isx? Biii to -[jtiibno eti^ moit jltSBsr bXtrow ;^jsiiw woa:^ 
woY *8noxi-3*osqxs tuo lo Yr-ffi bsbsaoxs rssl: a.of{ Xooifoe edi "io aasna 

?s'is£ia aXrfBX3bi:ajaoo ^ist js ad" oiJ bsbsonoo ©cf j^ajjH ;^^w 
©v-UajB Y"isv Y"-8 BniM-sol-xsQ Son cus I d'^ucfJ ©«i^ ai: il aXMW 
-S009*!: fflG I ^tsrij' *ob1 9il;t moil: yI^S^sX y^®"^ sxii^iti'isnscf ei Xooiioa 

• di rot eXrfiarioqee^ Jxia^xs 

A »»a"l Xlisxla X 6x£;^iiOiS wel: ^ fix sa^sX x^ '^^ xipiy'ij'xiqy.e oxi* iz btts 

aiffd' q;j sTxg oi &r.BiL XXaxfa I ,iao% yjsi ai qqboiouI x^ised xisr 

ob I .woe x^uoas IXxsxaa sx dohi^ ^lBii(lso im rxo "fsixb lo cfxiaio^'xeQS 

d'/Cgl'xd' 9f)9iij :Jx:xC* axBB re&lrbB XJBoiboK x^ ^s «OTOin ci iOBVi icn 

ss qx! 3itxc[SE3l Xr^ xfj xw Ob oi larih ^.^erg s bjsxf ersid wmcoT Xxfl:'ia3r£o 

• SY^rl I 3^5 XXsw 

©^sw iiOY *i';xict L'-j^t ^ bcm uox bXxfov? aaoxx-sd-ajHuoils axf* ^tabnTJ 

sis i^oY iedt aemooiil sIcfcTrabxanoo y^^v sricT to doua oo^ g;« snlvi:® 

i&q QOOiH^ oi Yse Y'a^Xbb y® aajsatoxxx otf a'xsw XfOY '^i "QdxSis^} woxx 

~nx Gxjo&n&fiioa* ;tn':;B8'xq edi Ix ^^.Gxii ;aJKi^a«*s1eb£a; 3x£;t xl^i'^-' YjKBxxnx; 

s^onolcj-'xoqorcq xs «msY ^x&a omtiiaco ion a&ob sasxiisi/rf lit &ii.(iexo 

^xtsl&e edi ai sbsm ©a' XXBiia uoiiossbex 

~xoxd-ij3q bXtioxia I issdi iaisl, yXxio ai: il i&di set ocf ajHsaa d'l 

YHa "io aasoaxxa edi xxt YX©*xiitoxd'';:OiiQiC[ ;jKo;i'X9 XXsaa osjoa o:l Qd'Bg 

Jari^ fcxia idi'gae'xici bti-p- di iBed Yd baoilitcoac; I dahiff oi sairqmQiae 

,p^.3*K9 x^ oi hobciBi^o q€ iitoiX'3 auiou oi hIx;oxia aokiaqxolir.'y.e B.idi 

X<3«qqB oMt Io soi^aut 9ii* saiXxjaa xli^ocf XXl«v 0Oy it-EsrfiJ scjorf I 
XXbiis I iTiui;^ oeodi r^t bas ote trol Bfllrirfeinoa ob o* bavom ad" IIxw baa 

'•*9af Sxiirlecf ov/^aX nooe 

ba& Qd i&di -jniYs^ «QXex < ? ts^oioO leiisl aidi oi baxXs^ x£iX!jol& 

bSfbloQb <BS3n©(ix9 is^sercg, a'xiodXaW "io nox;tsiob±8Koo xii t &jBXi •xagrtBiI 

brxsj 'X39Y *xie'X'X£fo ad* %o1 bsiar sd" bXnoxla OOS<X# Io axffiocf & indi 

fosaxv&s qH ^boiCLQi'X&v} asxoiitbnoo "iJ: OS^X xigxroixf* ounljnoo bXi/o.T 


Vfalton that upon acknowledgment of the letter he would arrange 

f©r a directors' meeting to gire effect to this bonus proTision, 

WElton replied, under date of Octo'ber 10» saylngt 

"Please accept my thanks for your preaapt reply to my 
request of Octoher 7th. The arrangement you propose is entirely 
satisfactory to me, and I shall "be glad to have it put into effect.* 

Early in February, 1920$ in an undated letter, Walton 

wrote to Joplin inquiring ae to the make-tip of his income tax 

retui^, and Rinong other things said: 

"As my wife is virtually certain to surrive m&t I think 
it would simplify matters if I transferred ray stock to her now, 
unless you can fix up a joint ownership resting in the survivor* 
That is the way I have my tank accoxmt fi:xed. If I can also fix 
the stock and the payments for the good will, there will he no 
occasion to hother with prohating a will. Can tMs he done? 

1 am in hopes that you and Kr. Langer will h« kind 
hearted enough to continue some sort of hoaus 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 
name with it. 

Please exctxse pencil. It is easier for me than pen and 

Joplin replied to tiiis letter on Fehruary 5, 1920, axiggest- 

ing a method "by which Mrs. i:iralton would hecome possessed of the 

stock certificates at her husband's death and also means by v/hich 

the balances due Walton under the partnership dissolution agreement 

could be paid to her. The letter further reads as follows i 

"In regard to the last paragraph of your note, I feel that 
you wotxld 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 v/ould put me out of the running regarding any future 
action. As you are well aware I have been hoping for many years 
that I might %e released from the activities v.-hicli now seem 
necessary on my part, and it is only general conditions and the fact 
that you were incapacitated the-t have kept me at my desk, iiever in 
all my experience has the pressure been so great and never have there 
been eo 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 lay object and endeavor to put the firm in such shape 
a.nd organization form as will Justify my retiring. The school is 
well orgardzed novi , and at tlie time of the retiring arrang^aent 
made with you also imdertook certain obligations which beyond question 
will be followed out. You vail readily understand that a "t^onus is 
only deductible and considered as an expense when given for services 
rendered and cannot be extended beyond employees and officers. 


£«>i>.v3 ,w;»#®I b«*«fi»m aa h± «OS«X .riBur^^^ «i ^rt^ 

ihikSi TanM^ le-fi^-o snoiaw fcfis ^tctui&'i 
': ' 9c{J x-rx B«-t^'-^«'-J qidn-xsmo i£ilx>l « ci« xil as? iso^i 

iOCf Ou i* 

^n;:, nsa OBsii em Tol ttoiasa ai il .Xioaaq aawoxs safari 
&t>l&^ X^ afflssM oal.3 Sue di^^^h 8»bascfeifx£ isi- ..^ c... .o...L- .^iv .loon': 

)■><- .0 

»^A«7ii« "'■ * . . ^■.. [• r„ MD'T , HV noufi/ u.lX'iO Y"'"® ^'* *""** 

. ^T^^^ ' ' r. titV'toT^Aoot's.^bms CBLB uox dim Bbrm 


The preferring of tlie stock was suppo&ed to take caxe 
of Mrs. Walton and I would deem it most unfortunate to approach 

Mr. linger on tlie Bu'bjf^ct." 

Walton's letter had not been attdreased to Langer directly^ 

"but nsTertheless Langor replied thereto under date of May 11 ia 

rsferenes to the rGcmest that a "oomis might "be continued ae; to 

Mrs. .^alton after her husband* s death. langer saidi 

"I talked o-sr the matter v/ith l£r« Joplin, and '.ve feel 
that we could not at this time hind the school to future obli^tionsj 
particularly r,3 the persons v.'ho may he then interested may JnTOlre 

February 7» 1920, the 200 shares of preferred stock were 

a£3i3igned by Walton to hia v.ifc» the complainant, and in due sourae 

a new certificate was iBBueu to her and the old one cancelled^ .Valtoa 

died June 26, 1920. July 25 of that year Mrs. Walton wrote to 

Joplin, as follows J 

"I am writing to ask your adrioe as I premised my husband 
I would do if erer I were In doubt about any businees matter, 

I thought perhaps if I wrote Mr. I^enger and appealed to hie 
sense of justice and pot Bible gratitude to Mr. Itelton, he might be 
willing to Biake a better arrangement for us than the one my husband 
signed when everything wes at its lowest ebb, and when he did not 
think he would live three months - and was disoourged and unable 
to protect his and our interests. 

As things now are |2,C0O is not enough for us to live on -* 
nor is ^1,000 enough for my daughter if she Viere left alone* Any 
second rate clerk gets more than that these days. 

It does not seam just or fitting that the family of the 
founder and Lean of the ..alton School should reoeive so little, 
eepacially as the School is a flourishing institution now, and 
promises to continue so if well managed. 

I have Yfondered whether an appeal to 14r« Langer, with your 
approval, mi^-^ht result in a perraanent arrangoaent which would 
relieve us of anxiety? j^y idea is to ask Mr. Langer to do something 
now toward a just provision for us - more suitable in view of Jlr. 
Walton's connection with the School, -ould he agree to give us, in 
addition to our r-tipulated ^2tO00 a year, a percentage on e;^ch 
student from tLe. beginning of tMs coming school year for as long 
as the school exists? 

This would seem the nattiral, right thing to do, and would 

give the f.s.Eilj aii interest in the uuccess oi lihe school, and yet 
be proportioned to its varying receipts. This m3.ght take the form 
of a certain fixed suai froxa each student' u payiueiit - or a certain 
percentage thereof. 

si .tr •«^,''iJC lE^ d*.«5fo ^&«i; o*9u:«rf* 8>9iI<£9-£ if»ait«vii; Ba(i«X«%flit!?v«9n ^.ucf 

.^9*JiiH aaaiUaiTcf xn^ ^UoHb i^vah at 5>i©w I ^9V9 ti o& &Xwo. I 

« B.di«i©'XJ.-v...^ -.-0 fJfiJ^ ^•'•'^ JOfeJOTq; uj 

^ sP.-^sb e-;':-tflr:! -Jaf!:;? tisJif: axooL aii^ s*^^ R'noooe 

teX;f:HX OiS 9Vi:oc© XoOii©<^^' woe ' ,^ 

5X-t?CJ^'> liOxXi* 3iX*:i»' ■■ • -■^S>. •-» o 4 !• .-.---. ~.,.^ :. ro^ 

aao.X as ■ '-■• '"?a3-BJ:x» Xoerioa. ©ff* as 

5j^ci , .:M# iTifsiti *Xew*.BK sx« xaB»a &XiJO# aMT 



AimthGr plan v/ould "be to Inoroase our yaarly allowance 
from fSfOOO tc a consideraTsly larger aiaouat (with hali as muoh 
tc be paid aiy daup-^tcr at "x^ death) s^d to maks this larger 
BtuB perpetual* and not a *T30nus* which is sulsject to the 
momentary moov-^ of th-^ managcii5er*t, nnd not 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 Ms former f?tiidents » co-^orksrs rind 
friends in the profession ix they knew the small amount Mr. Walton's 

family is now reoeiving* 

Of course I realise I hare no le/^Rl grounds on which to ask 
this tho X do know that xay hu»'9and was in no phyeical condition st 
that time the miatake he wee making or to aake any stand if he had 
realised it* 

I am hoping that some such plan as I hare suggested may 
seea to you and Mr. Langer as right and proper » no"w» 

Please let me know what you thiiik of it, and if you approrft 

kindly adrise me whether to Tsrite Mr* Langer, or to hare a personRl 
interriew with him4 

Hoping for your approval and co-operationj I am, as everj. 
Cordially yours, 

(Signed) iCary E. nulton* 

V» S* - Upon locking over what I hare writ ben I find I 
have not expressed ay appi^eciation of the •Sonus' voted us for 
this year. 

I do appreciate it, and it was the realisation that I 
oould not have gotten alonjg without that Bonus and the few other 
SMall sumi3, also "belonging only to this year, which led mo to 
write this letter and reiiuast a better and penaauont arran^saaent 
for future years." 

(Jigned) H.E.^.» 

Following the receipt of thia letter Mrs. ^talton was asked to call 

on Joplin and danger, and she "brought with her a list of her 

investments. I.ang;er made certain suggoBtions with reference there to> 

which she did not follow, /js a result of the interriew It was agreed 

that Mrs. v'feiton shotilcl he paid a honus cf $i600 more a year, and ttiie 

sxaa has since heen paid to her. 

In contemplation of changing the chaiter of the V,'ialton iichcol 

oi Comiterce, L.;ingcr sent to Mrs. \felton a wairer of notice of the 

special meeting of the stockholders, setting forth in detail the 

action proposed to h© tsJcen. *ic company ing the letter, Laager v/rotes 

"The ohject of changing the two hundred shares of coomon 
stock with a par value of One Hxmdred J)ollars ($100) each to three 
thousand (3,000) shares of oommon stock without par value, la 


oris «>€r bXirev 

..... ,.......,, -.s,. Jtl^ isi abaeinl 

♦ ^ni^isosJT -iron aiJfc x^^^'^ 

til b©fiiIi^9X 

ysflx '^.<='.+0i^'<-'^-!»« eyarf I s« fi*Iq ifswa ©aioj: i&di ■gsxlq.od m,s I 

iV79« tXBajt-iq. ban td-^Jtrc sa t«b"^-»3: .tJ^ bn&-- Jfo-: o;} fflsae 

r)-7«.rl a:> 7.0 ^'f.evni--l »'tM oj'l 

^■^ 0^. tel iiox^ ,.«.^; aM^ o^_ ^m .«lr.noXod o.I^ .a««a IX.mj 

■isd. 1o it a IX 

:; x^Jd-^JX a ill* sixxw 

... .............. , :-;-„;.,■>=■ r,,^ 

./olXot #on felb »4a rfoirfw 


• i 1 j.Vi . . vi 

•WJjrfcf Oct doB3 (00X:5) -i'i.'-sXIoii ba-xbnxrH ertO 'io bwXjsv ti^q » rf^^lTJ- :tfood'a 
al «9uXjsv tsq: ^iroiltfiw >{oo;^b comraoo lo aai^iia (000«S) ftxwawori* 


largely for t-he purpose of penaittinjT the sale of some interest 
in tiie sclxool to certain of the ea^loyees. in the Hew xsbue of 
pra-f erred stock to "be iaousd to you there wil'X "be an addititmal 
preferenee in the case of liquidation, in that the tvxo iiuadred 
(200] sharss of preferred ^tock will "be preferi-ed as to JiosetSf 
"wbich was not the case in the original iseue. in other respects 
the ii3su3 13 the sstjk 'srith the exception that the voting power 
is not as great as formerly, for the reason thai; the three 
thouB5^,nd (3,0«^) shares of stock with no par ralue takes the 
place of the two hundrad shares (200 J of coBiiaon ^tocii: v/ith ths 
par value of One Hundred Dollars. 

I Tfould appreciate your signing the waiver of :^otice and 
returning it to me. ■./£ shfill he glad incleed to hgve you a;.tend 
the meeting should you bo deaire. If you dc not care to, 
I shall he glad to have the Minutes of the meeting: hroug'ht out 
to your house and read to you so that you aoay sign them.* 

The meeting of stockholders was held Deoeiober 28, lQ2Cy 
and a resolution was adopted increaeing the capital b took in aocord- 
anoe with the proposal stated iu the letter* Polloniving ^e stock- 
holders' Eieeting the t>oard of direotors convened and attended tlie 
"by-laws so as to gire effect to the new capital atmoture. 

July 24 1 1924, Allsert wait on » ISdwaXd a* ..alt on cnc [aama. 
lee Walton, heing respectively the sons and daughter of i^eymour and 
Hary !• v^alton, assigned to coiaplainant all their x'igh^f title and 
interest in atid to any and all the personal property aonatitiiiing 
the estate of their father to which they were entitled under the 
laws of descent or otherwise, including all choses in aotion, and 
particularly any and all rights of aotion against the Walton School 
of Commerce or its present or former stockholders or diroccors, 
aad thereafter suit was instituted toy Mary S» Walton in her o'^n 
right and as assignee of her children. 

The gravamen of the complaint is that hy reason of the 
fiduciary relationship alleged to have existed between dValtonj 
JopllB and Langer when the ccaatraote of 1918 were executed, the 
1»urden was imposed on defendsjtits of establishing the fairness 
of the contracts to Vfalton, and, they iiavinfc? failed to aJisUEie this 
burden, complainant is entitled to have the asreeraeata set aside 
and to an accouriting. More specifioally, complainant's oass is 

IjIX « CO .':.'■ .- b ,":i.f , ) / f 'tn 


■ : ., «ij. jiiu.!..' .-- ;.Ki.i.i.) .» s .ff> ft.-;-.'-, '.f • ■?;« 

a^O^^af/X 'i®fItfo «i .sxfaai: X^;:. :_, , . .„ , . , ^w 

jS'Xdi ^i ^iiiJiU me.c'^x 9x1? tc'i ,x-£'^^«'-<^'^ -■ ;' -'^t'i s/; ic^u a± 
t.i^ il:.L..- laoi ., fioaii?i0o lo (■.VOS) ea-iBids &a'i:.:-. .Iq 

»V«jK®ii^ fT^.t.^ 'C-'yit -uo"^ <lAif;t ob act «^ bsotc bxis eawc: , ^ oi 

.dX«i'Cii/--Ji) XiSixq.'iO w©« aii? &«' #-,:;> xle ©▼i'c o.; as oa :;rwa£~xtf 
.rjiu,^; j;.L.;. .-. f%».ib,ti ,aoiXJBw JT»«riA ,*c%0X t^S '^.Ir.!'"'- 

bXu ^£$,1$ t-i^-il? %x.f^sii IX.B ;tiisriJ;*iXqiflGo o* Mii^v 1,^;^,,; <iic;;i' 
SiiiSwJiijJiE.iXO© ^**£oq«'xq X^fJ03::&q od'j iSa bos -^its o, : r. S'-a^iuz 

.f)jri£ iVjoliCM fiJ. asdseiib IXb ^KxbwXoax^eBJrwnaxi^o zc ^iivjoaob lo a^iSi 

Xoorfoo aoiJJi'ii &di Jani.iaa H©li'CiJ3 lo »*flg li IX« f>na vae Y-tt'^-^^c-^*'^'®? 

,«"£«-*od«lfe "it© a'x&hlediitetii Tsactftl a© Jnaaatq B#i: '.co 9oif»jaEsoD lo 

a^9 T^d ak aoil&ti .IT ipi/^K x^f h&iaiUnial aaw ^ixie iscJ-l^iOioxld bas 

• noTibiitfe iwi lo ssrr; ' 
OJL£:t -0 aoaijsrr -^cf i-^* aX iniijXqsoo ajf? la nestsTj-ris o: 

ad;^ tfeojffosx© arrsj? ctX(?X lo atfosi^floo 9Ai noriw •iSi^.c.x l^rta niXqol. 
aaoatisi'k mii 5jHiUaiXafA#«» lo •d'tts&H'jl*9b no bB&Qqmi. ia>y^ riabixwr 

\^j).'.r :-':•■ _. ■<-:-'.:r- ^'-■■'- - ■■■!- --;■- ■■ :. '-:.[,^':- '^uij:.iU^.:Kc. ^asb^urf 

predicated on the charge that Langer and Joplin foresaw an •aaprgv- 
oedented prosperity for the school when the contracts were nadet 
and that it was inctuabent on theai if thay were going to deal with 
WaltoHf to impart to hia all the knowledge they hadj that "by failing 
to do so they violated the obligation imposed on them lay law* 1)e- 
cause of the fiduciary relationship of the parties* and througii the 
withholding of knowledge at hand, they prerailed upon him, while he 
was ill and inoapoitated and after he had heen told hy hi£i physician 
that he had hut a short time to lire, to part with his common atock 
whioh in subsequent years yielded enormous diTidends and enabled 
Joplin and Langer to reap a harvest for themselves, not only throu^ 
the dividends earned and paid on the common stock held by them 1»ttt 
also throu^gh the enhanced salaries voted to themselves after V/alton*s 

Defendants contend that the 1918 transactions vrere thoroughly 
fair and equitable to Valton, when judged in the light of conditions 
then existing; and that the evidence conclusively shows an utter 
absence of overreaching* imfairness, deception or compulsion. The 
commissioner found that no fiduciary relationship existed between 
the parties with reference to the school enterprise, and the chan- 
cellor, who heard arguments on the exceptions to the commiaa. oner*s 
report from Octoher 26, 1933» to Jaxmary 3, 1934j was of the same 
opinion and stated his conclusions and his expressions of entire 
accord with the coEmis si oner's findings and recommendations at the 
conclusion of the hearing. If the contracts were fair and equitable 
to Walton, as of the time of these transactions, and no knowledge 
possessed by Joplin and Langer was withheld from Waltai so as to 
induce him to enter into the agreements p it would be immaterial 
whether the parties bore a fiduciary relationship to each other, 
since the law does not prohibit trgiisactions between parties in such 

^ivr -itev? Y^* 'i-^ t^^di no ^nacrnmei;. ^ *ari* haa 

Sftillc'l: \;€f ^«4:r ^dvaff 't^ii* asf.iftlwotusi ©ri* XXe laixi ojT ^lEsqmi o;) «ta3;*ifl«f 

imloknYM -rf 8^ x©;>l^ boo boislfiQqmnX hm-. Ill sbw 

ioocfs aoaaaoo aM x£*^' <^ti3q o^ «9YiI o;f sml* *ioiIa « #«cf &®il ©if *sfU 

belGT^ns* bm abmbtrii) nuomroao beblaiix ataet *ita«p©8£f«8 fli rioMw 

;j3^tf si&rfd ATd" feXsfi 3Coo;Ja x^ojaeroe ©if* no bLp.q bm b&trx&o Bbmbirlb ©rf* 
B^mtlB:.' ts^yts &9rl9B!aedi oi baiov aeiisL&a b»oaMuQ Bsi^ rfgixo^if;? ohla 

.,..:. -X0viaxjX«fflOO »dtt»blv oas isa^rfaiacB a»il* 

©x£T .iSoJtaXifqiJnioa lis H«>i*q9os& taaanttXelniJ ,-^,uiils>.a.©'iii:6vo 'io ^ocoatfe 
ii»«wS9«t 6s*aJbc9 qiiianoitfjsjtet xitiloubii on iBdi btmoU t9xi0x««8Jb!fl!t«3 

f. *'3:»no isaiBiiHCio s>n$ oi staoliq.»ox» ©dd no aSaemi'^tn tncaad oifw tioXXso 

©«te8 ©rf;^ lo asw ,=^SOX «S x^jsicial oi n^.C^l <dS tajfo.^rjO mtt itoq^x 

s^iiaei 1© aujolaiae'iqx© aixi 5fl« Risolawlonoo aM bo^a;?© bim aottilqo 

eiU t» ajsoLiBbfiaciEJOosx brie aanlbi- ' jo t-iaisifrtoo sfliJ tiitw btoooa 

olds*iJjp« 5m5 ■xis't otcw ado««;}'noo - .S«Hjs«ft »jd:* lo noisArXonoo 

oRfoeXvotcf on bus t&nolto&Bos'xi »soiii "io ©ai* o.dS to a& 4itol£liW"|i# 

o* <?«» C3a miim fflBil bJEaxtii; .3S«^'I fj«JR niXtjot Tce" bdfiiaeaaog 

Xsii >i*J3aiffli atf bXaow d'i flB*naas»©iss »x:. eoBhai 

^i&dtQ doHQ oi qisianoiial&t xxei&is oe a&liisio ndi tssiiodw 

a relationship tmless there has "been an abuse thereof* This 
preBents a question of fact* the consideraticna of which is aoet 
thoroughly detailed and analyzed in the ccBBmiseioner' s report* 
and in determining- whether hie ccsiclusiens and those reached 'by 
the chanoellor are sustained "by the record* it is essentipjL that 
the transactions "be Judged l>y the existing oimditions of the school 
at the tiae these agreements were made and the situation then oh- 
taiuing in the general field of the accountancy instruction "business^ 

Upon the theory that Walton had "been oyer-reaohedi and "because 
of the circumstances in which he then found himself; i»e »» that he 
had "been induced to enter into the agreements with Langer and Joplin* 
the amended hill charged that defendants secretly consulted counsel 
and had his prepare the settlement documents which were entered into; 
that they concealed from Walton the fact that they had consulted a 
lawyer in the matter and that the agreements had heend rawn hy a 
lavjyer. It appears from the undisputed evidenoot howeTer» that the 
documents were drawn hy Frederick A» Bangs f who for many years had 
been attorney for the school and for the accountancy partnership! 
and who in these* as in former transactions » had heen the attorney 
for Walton as well as for Joplin and Langer} that Bangs* in the 
preparation of the eontracts and documents* had consulted personally 
each of the three contracting par ties, including V'altonj that Walton 
had Iseen clearly and oareftilly informed of the facts snd steps t aken 
"by Bangs in preparing the settlement papers; that minutes of the 
stockholders' meeting held in langs«s office Uovem"ber 4* 1918jr were 
signed "by V/alton, as were the minutes of the directors' meeting hdLd 
in Bangs' s office HoYember 12; that all the settlement instruments, 
many of which have \)een in possession of complainant and her counsel, 
were inclosed in cavers plainly hearing the name and address of Bangs; during the several years which intervened hetween the filing of 

^tf fc«i£eij«5 »eoii.t :...;.-..;.... -M torC^fufe :ittini8rx3*9& ni baa 

^jiyJJ Xst*Hsa88> ai: ... . -:cooi sdi x^ fesnis^eaa »i* saXIsoneifo o&i 

„...>, , r rioiiaif:tit2 ©d# B«a ebjsa ©i^vsr s^in>(«9«^B ©ear!* siairf 
♦ aaa..... ,»«•£;} bkI xoa9*B»©ooB 9At to bl&ix r«rt»fi9S »rf* '^^'^ 3«inl«* 

,, .r ., . .J ;-.i .<«»?'••' '-<■<•'-;• rrwrr- '' .' ! ■, J" H MOIL' !.;* -:;;<If c ■!£ .t ©rfcf lO 

£®anwoo &9*I«axioo -v:X*s2s?®a nixuita&t&h Stuii be^tisifo XXicf babiisau* 94* 

lojai :-)9i©^it« »'x^" jfoliiw siixomsoob ^a9iB»S,Ai&Q arf* ©Tusqet? Mid bsA bos 

a be^lustsoo bsid x^di iMi :* '• -''^ rA:tX • "<"•<:!: r)©Xaa©«oo X»il* Jsxf* 

ja x<^ nwfii bnwetf toil a^ii>:.u.wj. x,;., .'...: • ■^■^Hbt^ ^^rr;* r^i •:^>-^«X 

sii;J iT.4;? tTeva'^oii ^sanabiro 5©*yqal&m; - •'• si^f'-rv - >• - , ...tC'tbX 

f^g^,.; ■• . ,. ■ , :,r- " * "^ :ioii&fi&'i^ %u nSriBtb ai9W 8*K9iawoo& 

^ama-i^ixi -x^-q, Xi^nsii^so 00..- •..:^ XocJlos --':' — -• ■■r--U£ nsetf 

©if^ ni ^asxiaS ^M^ t "csBfi^^ bua aiXqoT. t;) .'- m XXr - \tX«">; TOl: 

XXX^ia>a':9Q ba^Xwewos bad ,a*nsaB/&6b ftiio atcBrinoo axCi ■.■.> u< ioB^^sqa-xq: 
na.tX?. .^BJid- |«o*X«\V sxiibwXoni taaJtif tsq ■^atioii.'xiaoo a^trf* ©rfa "io xfoae 
aetR 3 sq9*a Bob 8*,'>^" " ' ^o baflraolnl t^XX-uIstjco 6n5» xlt&slo ii96d bad 

^■iOft' i^JiQI t^ ■lecfetoTOl 001 '■■■"- •♦. : " •' ; .' ■* ♦r^s'io&Xotisloo^a 

Mori snirf^oKJ 'atro^oe'slfo ©iCv ^u -' d'ua.!..;: m^i >,■,. .:« 5.;v.jXii.'.^ ^cf baoaia 

i'&itifum.tti itii iaBaa£ii»& 9di XX« *j»fi[d' jSX is cfiai)VO K ooi"i'to e ^a^fUsS stl 
tioanji/oo led bnjs ^nsisisXiiraoo lo ao±ai»eae©q[ ni. ii9©j' >>- ^ I .';,': ■ "to xaaiA 

jasJi'tsS "io asaibbjB foiijs mif:'" ■■'''■ -Ttx-xnocf ■■•.r-"' ■ '" r-; ;- ■ •.A.'i:;/i.j. oiew 

^o :-!'",''^"- -'* n'^a^jytf bv^-iw ..:..OiiJt /ioiil^; .r: ^ .;.../: •:^> ; axu; sniii/fc it3x£* 

the "bill and Bangs' s testimony'bef ore the ccamniss loner, neither 
complainant nor her ootansel interviewed Bangs to ascertain the 
facts aljout his part in the preparation of these c*oc\aBents, al- 
though they must hare knomi that the documents were drai&n by him* 

Complainant also alleges that in Hovemher, 1918 » Joplin 
and Langer called on Walton in his eiok roc» at home, aaS with no 
other person present urged him to enter into the settlement agree- 
ments, and that as a result thereof he si^^ned themic To sustain 
these alle^tions, oomplainant testified that in Hoveniber, 1918t 
Joplin and Langer oaaae out to hare the contracts signed and remai.ned 
with Walton almost the entire afternoon; that ftalton told her that 
evening, or the next day, that the contracts had "baen signed; that 
she was perfectly certain that Joplin and Langer were there in 
November, and that although her husband could then scarcely walk frcm 
his "bedroom to the living room, Joplin and Langer remained with him 
aTaout three hours. This testimony was intended to support the allega- 
tions that Walton had laeen 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 correspondence, some 
of which is hereinbefore set forthp by telephone, and through confer- 
ences with Bangs, and that all the settlement papers weresent to 
Walton Moveaatoer 16, after which he spent several days in examining 
them, and that by arrangement on November SO, 1918, his employees, 
XisB 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 own letters, &n6 ccumot well be denied. 

Mary 1. Walton's principal complaint is that the 200 shares of 

ajEl;^ n.c«*t©0Ei5 oi (^tmE S^waiTTS^tni Xsanwoo *xari ion ;taa«±3lq««0s 

-X55 tBiacTrnjcob !5B9/:. Y*Bn.«>g»'^;' t ^'xaq aid imds nt^ml 

♦ffijM -^cT rw^-:if Mjsfiwoob ad* ^jsrfjf moa^ o'fBd Ssiss x&di ifc'UOif* 

00 xU: jaooi,St6jia elrf kI oodXaV no RsIX^o Tsar*«v£ bos 

icdi ^sii &XG;t noiXeW ipdi tfieoni9*!tf; a^l^^na sis* *aoifiX.-3 xio;tXs*' ii*iw 
.^flrf.f jf^erj-is «99cr bjBxi Rloei;^noo »iC;t *ia£d ,T£j»b *x9n exlj to ,sflin9V9 

fflliJ tUi^ bsaiBSSsx isaita*! bm? aiXgoT. ,£Hootr saivlX «» ** xaooT&etf aid 

-BS^XXs erf* *T0(I<I«a 0* babns^ax aew xnoMi^as* eiifT . s^trod asrcif* issods 

,-xsv»v7on ,aworia son?fcxY siTT ^bsdoast'-'iaro naecf bad oo^XbW *fixf* anoli 

iB ^im i9^wa bii^ ttli'iol &!sti xltio 9Sii .a«w ,OXeX t2S tcecface^q^a *p^* 

|>6aa*roai5 y^XsYiuneiTzfi asw i©**sm ©i{* ^s^lasiaxf* iadi i'mod e»ao*XBv/ 

•nos ,aoa»&noff8s:£«ao lo aar.®^ x«f ao*;5ioonss o^i airi bxxis coiXaV/ a»©w*©rf 

o* iti^oBt&ff Q'sscrsq taatJwaXJd'ss ©jeI* XI,^ ^arid fjm t^BXtsS rfii.v aeoaa 
awJUiXJasxo ul a^ab Xat£®vsa ^aaqe &n sioisU' -tens «5X -radSffsvoj,. no*Xs*V 
tRsa-JloXgfaa sict «8X9X tOS r^sxfeevoM ao JaeBiss^dir. ijq' ^.BfC* bm .atsri* 

sBorKfiw o* sfls&il e-'noiXats oi *«o Sxsow t5f'?fi.i;tvCTV .tM bas riataH asJdC 

noi.'5«o6o XTm tio Sisaoji a»jrK>4X-*vv ip ion 9191&' x&^jksuE feite nllq^ol isisi^ .s^nsMH 

,0-'in-?' (L-ff XX:-J\7 JorrxLCO 5ftH tBT^^^d-'iX fS"0 R*nodJ .^ .■ rf'n'.rTnr «i: 


common stock ovaied lay her iiusljand were changed to nonvoting pre- 
ferred stock, mth the resiat that she s.n6 \7alton vjere deprived of 
the large dividends earned and paid on the cccamon fitook 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, cluring 
the same period, received f. 39 ,150 in the ffirm of salary, and :|39»450 
in dividends? rhereas Walton during his lifetime received only |7,700 
in salsry, smd complainant after his death received in the form of 
bonus payments $2,100, and only $12,000 in dividends -eras paid to 
Walton and his wife on the preferred stock. These figures undouhtedly 
show that Judged hy -what afterward developed, it was an unfortunate 
deal for V/alton to have exchanged his coiomon stock, hut the cioiainant 
thought in his aind, as disclosed ty liis omi letters, was to assure 
to himself during his lifetime and to his widow and children after 
his death* some ascertained and certain income, and the aco^uisitlon 
of preferred stook, yielding 10^, afforded the security he aought* 
He was in close touch with the financial affairs of the school, helped 
to prepare its income tax returns, and carefully watched its enroll- 
meat figures* After a careful examination of the record, it is 
difficult to reach any other conclusion that that, realising his per- 
manent disability, and knowing that he had not long to live, he 
desired to make certain of a fi:r:ed inecrae and evi-^ently believed the 
acquisition of preferred stock in lieri of common ? took, offered greater 
proteotion to himself and his family. 

Under the agreements of 1918 Walton received the 200 shares 
of preferred stock. In addition thereto his salary was fixed at 
^1,400 per annxam from June 30, 1918, and was to continue during his 
life, is'o services of any kind were re.Tjired to be performed by Mm, 

-9%%,^sitipTmsi 9it JfeajMiajt^ 31SW bmi€&LuL rt&fi x^ Baxijo ioo;re noiwraco 
■E^AsX u.t 5lzio;Ji4 jHOiiiEaso 9/{^ no bjbjq &n« feea^sd afeni^J^lrib egTisI airiJ 

HJfMS 9%a9x ©i&* /x^^i tjod* aiJOda fens ,fa®*o*''i1® a^sw a^Jtierfo eixl;? xsJls 

tOSfjdSXl «pc«X^a "io ifet^J^^^li nh aXmi ;'.ew l»®i5usJ ««nriealonl ,^S$I oiJ 

%«JkW».& tMM9\ i&fii -ie^a^bi^tb a& ,esOtaei# e;t«iC8rf* ttoliibtif) «i bfta 

03*^tS|. fejsia ,ic-i*'j:jcie 'io ia*x*l: ©lU «! 03X«9S* bsviaoest <&ol'xoij ©dibs exf* 

OO^CtVl xJjnq dsTx^osi ©jHxialtii aM s«-^T^i^8> OQils^ »;Berit»xfvy jRftxT06Jtvi& rti 

lo XK'SOl 9ifi' Hi: bavi eoa^ xld^j^S) a hi "iBilp, jnealBlciJtic o brr^ .f-^^a's nl 

^iieiiiiiiOi) 9^5 Jixtf «i»5HJi6 aotmo© aid Saaaoiiox© dv^u'l gJ nod'X^sW it©^ X^ab 

tsd'^iao a>iiali<do bcm weJbiw aM oi bois aasrid-dllX eirf anl-tAJb 'tXasraiil o* 
aoiii^xi/ppjs 9ti4 b£m ^^msiou}: alstii^t) baa baaia^xaaais »iaoa ndiiteb airf 

beqXsil tXooxfoa arfv .": i'n^s Xsiotteai^ ^di drfxw iio«ro* oaoXo fil &bw «iH 

' -jncX 3-oa barf »|f *arfjf sKirffoitsl fcej» ,x*-tXi<fia«l& JneK^sar 

«f* PjevaiX; cf ^^X^asftlTi bne snoacJt boxil « lo alB^neo arsUaa oi bsiiiseb 

Tced-fiStCB hf^'z-yzJo ,^oo? r, nomrrroo lo well ni sfjooijre bvi.%stto%^ It wol^iaiwpoA 

.Y.l-^js'i eiixf biiB tlssmhi oS txQ it oi»i oiq. 

Blci awfll^oeq o* bjjw fins ,8Xex «06 arjwli m>rX mumm %e<j 00^»1$ 

tmM YC b&m.o1'i6q_ q^ oi bevitf^etc aisw t>ni:2{ -^rxxjg i© asoivi . ,oixX 


and he was left free to conduct the Etudents* dep&xtmeut of the 
Journal of Aecoittitancyf the ealary of v.ldch wtc to iDelonc to him 
after June 30» IVIS. This secured li^lton an ixicone of *-5»40r! per 
amiiUB, and whun the salary from the Journal of ■.ccouiitnnoy is 
8,'j.C&6t it aggregated |3»S80« 

This income compeared most favorahly vfith his earnings during 
prior years. In 1915, lwl4 and 1915, he received a Balary of #2t000 
per annum; in 1916 he was paid |2»400| and in 1917, il;5,000« No divi- 
dends were paid hy thta tschool 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 sjaouat of 1^13,400 and divi* 
dends of $3,200, making: an average of |>3»320. Ifearly one-half of his 
total salary during the five prior ysaira was received in 1917 • During 
that year the oompany had undoubtedly over-reaohed itself and hecaae 
scaacTshat financially emfearrassed "by reason of the iacreape in salaries 
and the payment of large dividends, 'ifhile the income thus provided 
for ¥alton under the agreeaiento of 1918 eeexas aeagerj in the li^t of 
the unprecedented prosperity of the school subsequent to 1918, it 
soeas to us that the arrangeaente, judged as of the time at which 
they ^?ere Kad©, compare aost favorably with 'Walton's earnings "before 
he hecame incapacitated. 

The charge that Longer and Joplin foreaaw the unprecedented 

prosperity of the school when the contracts in queetion were made 

with ..alton* and had knowledge which they withheld from him for the 

purpose, aB alleged, of inducing him to part with hia common stockp 

should "be considered in connection with the following undisputed ^ 

The aggregate revenues of the school in 1913 were $23,309; in 
1S14, i'34,735, an increase of 49*2,"?; the 1915 revenues were |35,743, 
an increase over the previous year of 02»9jJ; in 1916 the revenues 
were |?59,027, an inorsase over the preceding year of 65.14JIJ; in 1917 





bi^q; o^i 'X£o^ i8ii:r iti .5X^1 o* ^tol^q Iooiic« ex£^ ^^ &i«« «••*' ^-^^^^ 

s^,,^ orn Bdi siUTirt) ,feeTieo3» nadt miim .^Xi .VX5I i^^t b«a »>.B 

-.ivib 5110 OO^.eX^: to itiuamB 9*l^?»TsSfl e^* ai t'caX«« « ti^X^X o* ^©i^'-I 

10 ?ri:..rl <)M? ni .-xefi^sa aaasa 8Xex ^o a*ne«B9©ta.'5 «ff* ^s&«*^ «o*Xb.? -lOl 

GTO'i^cf inutir-'— - «r<o.+ t>^f^ rf;H-,t xldstor^.'t isom fnmjma tablet o^sw X®tLi 

srfj tcoi «Ju-l mci't br.s>ddihj x^d:f dohtw ss&eXwsflst b^d ba^ ^milm^ 4*^ 
,iioo;rs «©«moo aJbsf d^ftv? *i«q O^ tstid ^l^ubal to t&as»XXii a« t©8oq^«« 

. ... , , uiheoQiQ sxi* -covo saco-ronx itr, ,TSO,eev sxftw 


the reyeuues were !!l"74,452, an increase of 26.13,^5 in 1918 the reve- 
bues were $93,322, aw increase of 25.35^. It thus appears that the 
rerenues for 1918 showed a very normal increase over the prior year. 
A similar situation apparently bIbo existed in the aocount- 
ancy "busineBB in general and in other accoxmtancy schools during &i6 
period. Defendants produced several witnesses to estahliah thisfact. 
One of these was Astlntr ioidersen, a puTalic accoxintant, who testified 
that "most men in his line felt at the time in question there would 
be considerahle 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 Bxcees Profits Tax Law and the end 
of the war, when it might come. Edward IS. Gore, also a public account- 
ant, testified that there were conditions in 1918 that gave a decided 
impulse to the public accoimtanoy "business in the future, due in pert 
to the income tax laws* \?illiaa 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 tiie years 
1916, 1917 and 1918, v^rere respectively 9,146, 9,382 and 10,280| that 
there was no marked or unusual increase in enrollment or in the demand 
for courses in higher accotintancy in the months of September, October 
and Movember, 1918, but that there w&b a great increase in 1919. He 
stated that it v?as 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 i^ovember, 1918, afforded no basis for anticipating any 
certain, unusual and unprecedented increase in the enrollment for 
courses in higher accountancy in the future. Kalph E. Weeks p 
president of the International Correspondence Gohoolsj at Ccranton, 
Pa., likewise testified that he had no knowledge or information in 
September, October and November, 1918, Vifhich would lead him to 

-©rat sj^Jt 8iGX iT-t i^.£X«S8 1« aa^ax&ni; fia tSCi^si'-ri &tstv gofsste'VQt odi 

-x?) Sri* •eoi KCiijsapXqr.'.e ®fl* i&di be&&iH oH '» . &»;^Xueistt ^4XXfiHil i&^t 
bxiQ edi bna v/.>3u: i^JS^ a*i^«,«^ ««#»xia siii* ^o insmc^ms aiiJ ftaw coiaasfl 

:.ol&Bl) « dV.'*a i^i 8X8X «i 3Hoin&noo oxw &^BAi isdt boilicfaai ,Jis« 
a-,,.. «i BUb ,B%uiu1 edt at aaorxlatfrf ^oii0*flHOoaa oiXtfnq arfrf cc^ s»aXifttflii 

*,^£* J08SI.,OX bm g8S,« ,a^X,e xX9Tl-;ron,jo.^:t «isw ,eX9X to '?'Xi'X ,6xex 
sE .^r<.': ni e^BStoai J^a^s b ^^^^ ^"^^^^ ^^* '^^^" -^"^""^ ,^atf«c»Tott boa 

•sal dn'djaI£oa«» ©t1* Hi ««flo^3«4 b9S0o&9O®5qnw bmj X^wsiim ,nl3*590 
o;t fiixrf b39X bXi/OW ii<,M.v ,8XGX ,%odm^Yof. b«.« t9cro.->0 ^-r^cfK^^.+qoa 


anticipate the unusual and unprecedented enrollments in 1919. 
He said that many people feared the ending of the war Ttould bring 
about radical ciianges in industry and agriculture, and that it 
would adrereely affect the accountancy school busineBEs . xiera 0# 
Lesley, who had been executive secretary of the iTorthweetem 
IMirersity Gohool of CoLiaierce since 1908 > testified that the school 
with which he was connected gave lessons only to resident atudenta* 
and stated that the r egistration in accountancy for the year from 
September, 1915, to June, 1916, was 856; for the year ending June, 
1917, 1079} f or aie year ending June, 1913, 946j for the year ending 
June, 1919, 1002. 

This e vidence, showing the record of other institutions 

siijiilarily engaged and the opinion of accountancy school executives 

and public aocountantB,/that there was no definite expectation that 

by tlie end of the war xmuEual prosperity %vas coming to the account- 
ancy business. There had been a rather steady growth in the Walton 
School of Accountancy, but up to the time theBe individuals entered 
into the agreements in 1918 there v/as no indication of any extra- 
ordinary increase in enrollments. .alton evidently entertained the 
same vievfs 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 conBideration, and saidt 

*\Taien I made the settlement vdth the school a year agoj I 
considered that it was a fair one under all the circxaastances, 
though many of my friends thought otherwise. We did not then know 
what would result from the ending of the war. Since then, ccxidi- 
tions have materially changed. The progreys of the school has far 
exceeded any of our expectations. You and L. are reaping a har- 
vest eno3:TaoU5ly greater than you had any reason to expect.* 

By this letter .alton confirmed the position taken by Langer and Jopli 

that they had no reason to expeot thiat thsy 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- 

SKXTrf hUitm 'x&a sAi 1© aaiftii® »ji# feoias'i aX^iaaci \;as«i *,9il# fol/io »H 

^©ni/^ snifon«a xe©'^ axil ^co^i s5§8 a^tw ,dJ[fiI ^eattl Ov* «aX€'X ,i©<fia»i^q9ai 
^£ilbja0 T»9X »d$ iQ'X l^^^ (tOieX «oawT, ^ulbaa ijea-^: ajsfcf itol ;CrOX tfXeX 

• sooi i'^'i'^'i ««Bi/i; 

xso^XaW .sdd" Xti x£;fwoia ■^.bss^a lisxIi^TC ^ caecf bjsjri ^'x&di: .aaaulBWcf ^©oe 

ibsia^rte aXsxi&iv Jt&aX sasjld' ei«li ori* od qir isj<S tXoaaimsoooA 'to totfttoci 

~>3'e;^x© xasz "io woxi^oXi&iix Oiit ajsw ertadi 8XyX itJ: a^fnamsstrga ad* oitnl 

ail .v&»«B9'ionJ: »«? "Sji^Xaa aM^jBifiJ s^-i^Ifc's «QX^X < i" ^stfo^oO lo ts^rfsX 
ibim kim % tea XiBX^b turn o avb x&ttsm-a &tii narls o*ri eii iarf* ftswexta 

ta©oa«;tnij[smo'xi:o s^* XXs rsbtw sno tijol b aow is. ^■^.lii itco 

woiXJl £i9rf;t iof. ftxLi ev/ * s s .*:'="?: '*rW o silr;;..'o.t^;^ <^ Musi's 1 -pr lo . -oaV 

-ibrroo twexftf soul-l;: > to 30 1- f^oil JXixfiQi olijo . ^.orTv/ 

-'xnd ,ci gjBxqijeri at^ «... Jjixs woY »en(. .:;o 'to xtw, '.: 

IXqoL bos nasABtl x^ a©jl*^ Koiij^aeq; «*C^ fr^Hncilao© ao^Xev» -sat^*©! eJtrirf ^ja 

OM q;«©x o* s«-t»^ j?3:e«w .^fufit^iT #a^* , t^.o«j» ©* noaooi oa iwuS \;©j[id' *Jod* 

^rtxi^ tttoiti9saa a Jul bras «eB8nleu<r Xooi:{o£i esii lo ^jtff ^serxjoif 9£ia&iasii 

•'■do 9iii 1L& t&bmt *xjbBl: it bBi&b tanas ^d in'.m.&£iiQvt mli Bhtu^ uti aati^^ 


Gumstaxiceat aegatireo the charge that he was prevailed upon to 
sign the agreements and was OTer-reaohed. Langer waa oalled as 
a witness by complainant* and asked v/hether he had any knowledge 
or information in September, October or Movember, 1918, that led 
him to believe that there was almost certain to be an unusual and 
unprecedented increase in enrollments in the courses in higher 
accountancy, and hia response to the question miB "no". 

It is urged that the very purpose of the 1918 contracts 

and the corporate acts in connection therewith was to change Walton's 

200 shares of common stock in the school to preferred stock, without ' 

voting power, and for that reason they viere contrary to the public 
policy of this state, and illegal and void, ab initio . It is evident 
that all the stockholders agreed to the change, that no fraud or un- 
due influence was exerted on Walton, and that ho approved the plan be- 
cause it afforded him a fixed income during hia life and provided for 
his wife and children after his death* Ab 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 thrw 
individuals, dated IJovember 20, 1918, it is provided that no executive 
officers' salaries were to be paid except out of profitsp 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 stook* The company has regularly paid the divi- 
dends, and Walton and the holders of the stock have r eceived these pay- 
ments ever since the isstiance of the stock. It is fundamental in our 
law that a party cannot receive the benefit of an executed contract for 
so many years axxd then undertake jco say that the contract is invalid. 
As a matter of faot» Walton never made the claim ths-t the complainant 
now advanoes, and her claim was not made until more than five years 
after the transaction and more than three years after the preferred 


yi3,....x.voa^ ^ns bjari eii ^.. . bats titmai&lqmo X^ isneMiv « 

. ,.. ^ r.r:r ^ ^,-,a'.«...-.,,-o;. '^,. T-wr, r-, .v, > , ^HtM9iq.sZ ctl ROlStisrto'iriX to 

or..- irwtui^u ...; ^u .•-. .^... ..■■.. ..--..^ 3t»di isi^i sr^t£9^€ oi tshi 

, i»«"" "Vi<M^ ia»ii890p W^ o;J 9aaoqa»:f aJbt bets «xofisit£Ufoo6a 

: : ,;r-~ ii.als'X(i oJ Xoorioa ®W ni JI6o*a Hoannoo lo asTBXfe (X>S 

Diiijjci oi.i oo ^c^«-Uaoo 9TS.W '^arid noaasi iflrii tol baa ,i9W0<i Brti^ov 

;jn?bxtf- ■ ' *oiiinl tfg t&iov biue Xjssalli bos ,eJte.-f« '^i^i-^ to ^^iJ^Oq 

„ ,j ;;,., ,; , . ,>;. iiJif* to^cuuio &di oi beaiSJB ai®bXo^...... 11b i^^* 

-•£0 HisLi 0..:. : :<3S ed ifiii^ hvu5 ,HO;tX£% .-r- '^-tTT'Sxa ai-;w ©oKeuXlnl ©«& 

'fci bstjivo-ni Oi-ii-; oliX ajfcii s«iwb 9iaooni ....... x ,:•. aid beb^rons ;^1 ©QW^o 

«9'xq 9ri* ,&Q*a*a ^bsattXB aA .xiifi9b aM it»nfl aaiblMo bii« e^iw aid 

i«^3j;x» nol:rBtro<iTOo Xooxloa 9ii;r r.: i^noi «a baabirib b«»rf±«ba»Tq a^i bl^H 

txta 9i« to 3neHi99TUB Bdi labnir .^isaaaodfa &tk»T»« ^t bawrboiq *i boa 

OTi*«oaxs on ;^^* bBbiretii Bl : r ' - . ■ --- -^- -ri^& <8XB«&±Yi:biil 

Oii^- — ,.^*±'ioiq lo iifo Sq:ooy:o i^i^c, tow a^i ■ ,'; - 's^Soino 

-mcsu c: rtoi^^oirbsb sil* lei^la Xiimi :j3i?*nrfti!:.);. ' n;* 5on; ur;^ iTloiq 

s«r o;f I)ii'.:ii,'jJ9'x sb«sbiYl.b lo i'ccuoiujB XXt/1 »ri* lo no j„';vxcqio© oridf *G n^nl 

-itrJA V-" -r ' ■::: -■.•-il ^jxiaqetoo SfCf tibo^s f!)9T:t9'iei(i 9;'" ^-- • bleq; 

-Y-flQ o.'.t::iiJ ;i'-;,T .' «i aoQ*a ©/f4 'to a'xe&Xori :' "f'.o no;fX/;;. >; bnab 

tno ni Xa;tn«5ir^i>r.irx «i :tl ,a£ood'; •" ' - ■" -. ''" ' '" ' :^---r. 

lo'i ;foaT:J'iioo beJwossx© xub 1:© *il'3Ueti -in;:' s^',- o'-" cronnijo X7 xz(i j? .ix.nn ...kI 

.bxXsvnJ: al jToJST^noo .li ijsa •( 9Jtad^9&nu aeri* biis «JSfi8\; ^^^^ 08 

j.i*sjHixiX<i:nv^ -;.eiid' dJ;. ' .^h&m isTen «K>*XaW ^doj's'i lo r^^itsm « sA 

STtBoy, oyil muii oxoa Xijrof ojbaia ion nam kIbIo ted bmi , as onB\?-bj3 %'OK 

ba^T-otarrq ©jrfi ■xe*!/} eisax o&tiLi a&tii srrora bnis no JfcJojsexttr'ii ari^ 'r9*S« 

stock had 136911 aurrendered lay her in rotiia-n for stock of an ua- 
q.uestionerl superiority which wis free froai &ny claiBi of iliegaiitjy 
growing out of the technical detail of its issuojice. 

In addition to oharKing presumptire fraud growing out of 
the 80-called fiduciary relationshxp» alrear^y discUf-.He{i» the amended 
hill also charges actual frE.ud. The oonBtiissioner and the chancellor 
ruled adversely to the complainrnt* r: contentions on this iEBue. The 
law is -vvell settled that fraud xrill not he presumed, fOid one vho 
cliarges fraud must sustain his allepattons hy clef^r and convincing 
evidence. Complainant's evidence utterly failed to sustain the 
ch-n-geB of f raud » and since her couneel do not argue them in their 
"briefE a further diecuBsion thereof would appear to he uimeceBeaxy. 

Complainant alao charged that a fiducic- ry relationship 
existed hetween herself and .Langer and Joplin. r^ecemher 38, 1920, 
after V,alton's death, a further change of the corporate organisation 
wac effected. The 2':( ehares of preferred stock OY/ned hy complain&nt 
were changed to preferred stock of similar preference as to dividends 
during her lifetime, with the option in the coip oration to redeem the 
stock after Mrs. Walton's death on the same terms as formerly. This 
new issue of preferred Btock was given a preference also as to assets, 
■which it did not formerly have. The 400 shares of common s took, held 
equally hy Xanger and Joplin, having a par value of $100, were ex- 
changed for 3,0(^0 shares of no par common steak. Complainant argues 
that a fiduciary relationship existed hetween her and 7,angeT and 
Joplin, and that they did not fully inform her of the effect of these 
changes, -wherehy her interests were prejudiced heoause she was thereby 
rendered xinahle to control the election of one member of the hoard of 
directors, aiid also heoauae her pre-emptive ripht to suhscrihe for 
the new capital stock thut might he issued was greatly lessened. So 
far as Longer is concerned, Mrs. walton evidently evinced an unfriendly 

■zoI.l39iimo 9di beusi xsnoiasirjEso© o^'f" .bw^t't L^wJ^ct aegTaJtio, oaX^s Ilxd 

siiT .sjjaa; .soiJ-xiocM. ' uj-slcrjaco Qdi oi Ylaertcvftfl baXtrx 

cxr{ , 'liajjHsicx ©rf Jon ilj. . ■; Zovf al WfiX 

rflo«xvHOo ba» 'xaoio Y^ 8n©at*BS0XX.c aiurf nisiiaitti iBista bu&t^ Bagxexlo 

srid airri-^iua ot b&ltpi't vlT^^ttfw son- ' ' ''IqffloP .oona&lYci 

risaasoexini; aawoaift lerftfixfl js a'ieixcf 

noWjaslflisa-xo e^attoqioo add- io a-^flaffo xsiid'XMi s tdie-ab e*s^>i£»>ti tsi'^ 

s^fJsaijsXqmoo X^ bQtmo :AQOie bytis'i .feaioslla asw 

abnsbiTib o;^ ajs. ©ousxoleiq -caXiiaif.; to j(c)y.*j Oaxxsloxq o;t &9axi4Bxfo ©ts.v 

©ritf ra9»b»x od noi^taxo qfioo •rid' al aoxi :»ii 5«i7.i;E) 

Hi9seB oi SB oala soflsxalstq s csvi^ qbw 3{ood--^ bsxx9l9xq io Sifeai wsxc 
6Xs/; ! nonimoo to ooxsda 00 :^ ? ilxcfisxel; cfoi. .'flw 

"n.ail bmi -xaxl ueawjed" b®#aixa9 ^Maaaiv&X&'X y;i.BXt»iJ da- 

eaexv.' 'io ^^onl't'-.; nl^ 'to "xod Ktolai 

';uaiu 4»ao Io noiiofc.;-^^aoo 0* »X(f«£u; &9X9bii--v..: 

'xo i. &di:-xo3cfi. JV(t*qfii9-©xq x&ii «axfX!09cf obXjb i: t ■ ' ' • 

. •:)nQai3aI xLi^aza jmsw Jboxraai aef d'xialai rf :xlj ioo:fa .paiiqiJO wsiii oiij 

[wasx^lr.: ' - •' . aiM tbeiiTuoxioo ai x»8xmil oa xal 


attitude tovrarc' hiffl. whlsh repels the idea tbp.t she \Ja.^ reporlng 
confidsnoe in Mm. She felt more :<:lndly toward Joplin, however. 
Shortly after ;.'alton's she asked Joplin'? advice, saying 
that she wp,e ViTitinfr to Mm In pursuance of a proBiiso she mcde to 
her huBlDftnd axid complained thr t slic and daughter coulcl not live on 
the income providnc?. Buheequently she had en interview wir,h Joplin 
and£:er, bringini' uith her a lif:t of securities Lt-nge-r R.iac't; 
certain reooBimendatione in tlie matter of the sale of theee securi- 
ties, and p dvised the daughter to take a teaching position. Uoae 
of this advice wae followed, nevertheless, langer aid Joplin, after 
consultation together, agreed to and did pay Mrs* felton ;'^1,200, 
representing the halance due her hushand under the accountancy 
partnership dissolution agreeioent, which was not yet due, and they 
also undertook to pay her a 'banus of f60O pep annum, -.jThlch has since 
"been regularly paid to her. Decemher 22p 1920, Langer sent to Mrs, 
Walton for her signature a waiver of notice of a speci?J. meeting of 
stockholders, set tine forth fully the action proposed to he taken at 
the meeting, together TTith a letter in which he invited her to attend 
the meeting, and also advised her of the proposed chance of csMnmon 
stock to 3,000 shares of no par valuep stating that it v/r.p largely 
for the purpose of permitting the sale of stock to certain employees 
of the bchool. Mrs. Walton did not answer this letter, hut telephoned 
Joplin inquiring how the chroige would affect her and v/hether it would 
"be all right for her to sign the waiver. Joplin told her it was a 
better arr&iigement for her and that it was all right for hei to si^a. 
Thereafter she Eiened the wpiver of notice, sent it totjether with her 
proxy to Joplin, and still later she signed the minutes of the meeting 
which showed the chmges in the corporate structure. If any confiden- 
tial relationship existed between Mrs* ".Yalton and Joplin it v^an purely 

personal po far as Joplin '.vaa concerned p and would not afford a basis 

■UiiT&as «.|^«i»|?yJ&MS; ?^♦aiiq•a''^ bstetm ail:-; ' ■ " .ilfi .XXtftorf^^ 

ito ov.tX *«^' aiifetf.^; '"fi 5«».aisXqtmos f»a» fcflstfajjrf T9xf 

«0OS)(X^ jpSDiiiiv. »3iia -^aq; bifc 6ac o# feoe^vfs ti©rf;li-«»^>©* HOi^sJXmiHoo 

■ aiG a^^ iloiife ,ta/«f^ tdti aot^ -o auwd a 'm^W't <** 3lo&ir3:9iriaf ©els 

'io 5inxMn9iff X«5r. . noJifon lo tQviwir Mt^^tvxfi^t^lB rcajf tot MecffaW 

l>xr?>J;<.3 o:> tsd Ss^ivsi »^ Jlolrfw nJ- rt^i^dsT. £ Aits rsAf^'^ci t%niifi»si asfi 

^Xjjow ;fl rtsrf*«itv? 6nB **tl , ..Caov/ s^itoifo edit woU gfiJiTJUrptxJ: flJtIqol 

B ajsw SX t»d £»Xo* nJiXi; , , ' . ^ od 

-ii'-iZj.^xnoo L .5##*j3rroqioo srfo it J: asariatfo arfct feaworta ifoirf'.v 

■V:;X»itfq a.iw *.r aiX^oX. Mu^ iio*lfi\'.' ,3i5i: ad^'^acf b6#ai?:9 (jtrfaneioVyX^t XsiS 

Eji'ii'^d" ■-; '",.n r •: fort foXjtfOw &isa «6<iriL3onoo so.v fltJtXqoTi j'^ XsrioaTS^' 

for setting aside the act of the corporation in changing its cor- 
porate charter and thus affect the interests of other stockholders. 

In addition to what has heen saifl with reference to the 
principal contentions hereinbefore discussed* it is urged hy defend- 
ants that relief should he denied "because of the prlnciplea of rsti- 
ficiation, aoquiescenoe, waiver and laches » and "because of the rule 
that a party claiming to have heen defrauded mustji if he A-yiehes to 
set aside a contract on that ground j act immediately upon his ac- 
quiring knowledge of the fraud. In considering this proposition 
complainant would "be "bound hy Y/alton's aetSf or his failure to act. 
After the transactions which are alleged to have constituted fraud 
against Walton were constmnnated, in Bfoveinber» 1918, the Y^alton School 
of COEffiierce 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 Octoher 7» 1919 » to Jopliuj asking for a more favora'ble 
settlement than hatl "been made, in T^iiich he saidt 

••We did not then know what would result from the ending of 
the war. Since then, conditions have materially changed. The progress 
of the sctiool has far exceeded any of our expectations. You and L» 
are reaping a harvest enormously greater than you had any reason to 

The letter stresses the continuing value to the school of his name 
and his personal need for greater income, and he rsked that his 
salary he increased to $3,0009 with the understanding that if the 
tremenduouB increase in hu&iness then existing did not continue the 
following year a proportionate reduction should he made in his salary. 
It is evident that vialton then attri'buted 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 ttie 


-too o$t ^wigK^do al tiet^siioq.teo ad* to ir>B adi obio^ %am@8 "xol 

0x£;J o./ ©afie'lalcel il!ti'«T oLsa m>6>a' 8^ iMv o^ iioii^ifobij Hi 
-o««l:0& x^ b9^ris ax 3r. «&oa8Boeii) 9T0l:erfnlsa»ii 3Hci:ctn9;tno» l^'.q_loalxqi 

sXt/t *if* "io SBj.f«o9d^ bJDw «as^o»X has ttsvisiw ,so«aoa©.Ju;po^ tnoi:*J3ioJ:l 

-fli bfitjis asiSiTi^fi'S Qdi at aaasnoui »a:!:.gX .n YP%n'> oi msbscT eoiaMot) to 

lot &xf8 (?X W IBQ^ o/?* d.'sweinsii i^mmutineo xCoifCw * Xoorioa erI;J rix amoo 

oxd-alMTA ©ff;^ to ^aio^ia ©ii^ BewoXXot airii: . -tfi^tss^ari* aimx X^isvsa 

nO^Xs^ ;tsira ♦n©i*«X3ls9l ®aQ©cl bean xst 'JS-en to iassf*oBfi9 oiltf Sms 

oXdBWvet s'som s tot s-«Ma« ,ciXjgoI. o* <ei"X «V i:>rfo*oO to ts^^^X 

to anibns Gif^ mtt JXj.'?'*'!: ^jDijow *.aiiw ^oxf^' fisrfjf *e£i &ife e^* 

,.I tiui woY .ax<oi:f.'^*t... > te ^xt «^ Xooroa srW io 

05J «ioafl©i£ Y«3 b^ aox i^^iJ i'*B©^B \,Xarc2i-0.i3 ^::;9^nari e ^nxqeai a-x^; 

©atfui aM to Xootlnn «rf3 oi esfl^r r-jHiwniinoo erf;^ asaaa-rJa ^©^td-^X erlT 
bM jfjsjrf^S' &®34fi-» sff btis ,sflioor£i "is#B«'£a lot baott XBfroetcoq aM &Ki.' 

«R[* ttMiii^nto don &16 sAlJaize aftiii' aaaoiaacf xii Qau&ienJ: fiwoi/busffi^-zi 
♦ ■?Tr..v:Xiva dJLrf iix 9b«M ©d" bXiroxfa mltoub^t &tMaoti'ioq,o-tz ^ '^■■^x gaiwollc' 

eri J-SJid awoH::; oaX'-; fc; ,: .jSibiia Slut 0^ S.r^odou @ti.' t.o ... :',n- 


earnlngB of the school. The amended hill of complaint admite that 
he received information of this prosperity in the fall of 1919, 
aevertheless he did not ask a rescission of the contracts Pt tJiat 
time, hut merely asked for a modification, and the school in fact 
voted Walton a bonus of $1,200 for 1919. lien 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 me. I shall be glad to have it put into effect." 

February 3, 1920, Walton wrote to Joplin with reference to 
Ms income tax return, and concluded the letter by saying that he 
hoped Joplin and Langer would be kind enough to continue some sort 
of bonus to his \vife after his death, if the school continued to 

During February, 1920, Walton assigned his preferred stock 
to c<»nplainant, and a new certificate Issued to her. In July of 
that year Mrs. Walton wrote to Joplin, appealing to Ms sense of 
Justice for a better arrangement for herself and daughter than was 
provided in the agreement made with her husband "when he was taxable 
to protect his own 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 the result of this 
letter an interview followed and Mrs. walton received an additional 
S600 annual income, which has been paid and a ccepted by her erer since* 

There is also the circumstanee 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 alton during his lifetime > 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 

fsilt s&ieifui ^isisicfiaofi 1© XXtrf bafertejaiB «iriT »laodoe odi tc s^nlntae 

*@£^X t© £lm% 6dt al i^l'Sf^T&axti slsH to noiiBmrotai bayiaoetc «ri 

&.nfii i'aj 8tojR^*n©o ewsTit 1© aoisBioastt b jsteii Jon b±& arf B&sIexiJnsTsM 

;t03l at j:ooi^i>a nAi tms ,i«si*««>itJtfe©m £. -tet bftaCas yXptohi Jwrf jtmii 

•xad^doO fio £>si%9t uo*£aW ftl>»*©iXis EE»ecf ft«^ oariiotf ©xitf isrld nJtXgoX. 
^ LU-ia xl'^'^iiWi as. oaoqo^q u»% ismam^emitfi »d.t^ $Si£.^ «SX<?X «0X 

oi 9oasi9loiE ii;Ji«¥ tuifOL ©;? ©io'iw rj0*X«W tOJIOI «£ Y^tf^tf*"^' 

'to YX^t «? .'saii t)i b&UH&i i3*jppl'iJtiM«o wsp » bas^#aafiij3X<jiapo oi 
7o &eit9s c.M o;t ^iXis^qfA ««i^^oCr o;f difoiw tt&ilje^f «9xM xs»>c ^Bi'-I;^ 

t-aiBlxQ loodon &di b3 ^jioX ojb fMir«ti^|»f o;J »ij|ta9feH#a rfo- o no ©ss^titaotteq 

toonlti -zero %si4 ^tf botiqeoo &bsm blaq Hesof a^j^ 4eM?f «9MQ|»«ii; Issjsixsm W^4fe 

b6t£>*as Slow a^nsiia39'xsu5 aiii i^d'lrj Bt^&\ Iljsif-OJKO &xub owrf- obiob ,8iBi^ 
8biS9l>lTl& eiri bos 8ir«t l-ieaie nssib .'^s Tj-«-C'f^3 srf* be^Jqaoos «fiiM ^rf oJni 

,£»c , « -i*fiOBi9©irSaj 8Xex 9Xl;f lo foalle aisifonicT erf;^ 'to «oiJ-.«m!j:lll.:. 


oocurred. 'Fhis queetion has already "been discussed, and it is 
evidsnt from the record that Walton wae fully avrare of the finan- 
cial success of the soliool for some time after the agreements -were 
made and hefore his death, ;ind thft he vras also fully apprised and 
conversant with the cirsumstanoes con<iected with the oxch.ange of 
stock and other imj)ortant provisions of the agre^aents. This is 
also true as to Mrs. v^alton. The record shows that her nephev/j James 
J* :yorstall, a la\vyer» vtas given a proxy to represent her at cor- 
porate meetings in Kay, 1922, and that he wrote to the secretary of 
the school asking for copiee of waivers and cansents which Mrs. 
Walton had signed, and minutes and notices connected vdtli 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, aa v/ell as lay her own letter of Jvlj 25, 1920, and yet she 
took no steps to rescind the agreanonts , hut on the contrary accepted 
the dividends on the preferred stock and asked forp andreceivedp a 
honus* Her conduct in this respect clearly constitutes acquiescencep 

ratification e.nd uaiver, and "bars her from r ecovering in this proceed- 

Pending this appeal, a motion -aas marie "by defendants to dis- 

aiiss the appeal* The motion was taken with the case, and is herewith 

The voluminous record and Tsriee filed "by the respective par- 
ties present other questions and details in the evidence which In view 
of our conoluaions upon the moin issue need not "be discussed in this 
opinion, which is already quite lengthy. We are ccmvinoed that the 
oommiSBioner and the chancellor, after most careful consideration of 
the facts and law applica"ble thereto, arrived at the only conclusion 
v/hich it WHS fairly possi"ble to reach, and finding no convincing 
reason for reversal the decree of the Superior court dismissing 
complainant's amended hill of complaint for want of equity* is 

Sullivan p P. J., and Scanlan, J., conour^. 

at il htm ,&aaaw9alf> cpod" xE>««>'«JC« «*^ coi^aeup aiiJT ,,b;-.-~i;o»o 

©Tew R;r-tsfli90i3xs »rf* ^t^la »Dii# ««pa -sel J^o^rioa. e^^ ;lo^BH^(|i^e X«l«»,, 
bofl ^aaitq^a XXii/i oa£* ««w sif t^ri^T fen*! ,di&ob aM e^cols*^ &«£ ©bs* ■ 

ai Sim »ata9ia&««8e ®^* ^i^*? afioieivo^q ;Mus*ie(iffii: larJ^o bos ^q^s 

.axa ifoMw a#as.Bnc» bae a«9TJfe«w lo •♦i:<ipo ?ol :^ni^«» Xowioa adi 
»^aMo edi dihr Safootmco asot^oa bos 8©*Hxtxs 6rw »69nBi8, iMWi,**©*^:-^*' 

srfa ;ro^c ^^> <<>S©X tSS vXHl lo 7.3i-^s>.r wfo %ed x^ ^^ ^■^■''^' '^^' ,biooot 
■ ' ^ ' *iAal 

axdi rti: beeatroalb ecf *on bs©tt ©traai iii«ffl &Ki mq:i/ e«oia«Xoaoo tsiro l# 

nci«i/Xonoo vX«o -^di iB hBrttts .oiar^i ei^^sxXgda vr«I fefl« a^foa-i axi;^ 

^.«iast^±b .^./ioo loxrcBCiixr. siij lo eo.coa5 ^di Is^t^rot tot ace^et 
at «Y;riai?© 10 #n:.v. lo-^ ;Jni..X<iWo lo llid boba^m ^'inaxii^.. ::: 



Appellant f 


CCa£PAHy, a corporation. 




Plalntirf , as 'benefioiaryj brought suit to reooyer the 
proceedB of an insuraiuse policy issued by defendant oa. the life 
of her 80iif Janes WataoB* The oaUBe was heard by the court 
without a jury* uad resulted in findings and Judgment a/re.inBt 
plaintiff* This is the second appeal brought to thLe oourt» 
the judgment preriously entered by the Municipal court of Chicago 
baring been reversed and remanded (opinic» filed November 5» 1935}> 
not published t general nxmber 38000}* because* as we stated in the 
opinionf the case ^ma "tried in a most imsatisfactory way* and that 
jUBtlee will be best served by a retrial of it." 

yroBi the undisputed evidence it appears that February 9, 
1933 « Janes Watson applied for a life insurance policy for $1*000, 
naming his mother* plaintiff herein* as beneficiary* The application 
was taken by Leo fhillipe, one of defendant's agents* Some of the 
aembers of the Watson family had carried industrial insurance with 
defendant* and Phillips caL led at the Watson home quite frequently 
to collect premitms and had known the family for approximately two 
years. On the day the application was taken he* for the first time* 
saw James vtatson in his mother^ s hone* and suggested that he zsake 
application for & policy* This was agreed to* and fannle Watson^ 

ft Ji TOGS 1 .L.^:'"""" 

Od .A.iUy^ -•" 

^d'^moo &Ms 04 iit^BOtd Xoeq?" &0ooae sfii^ az airil .'ij:i;^jBi£j[q 
i.8««?X <a ifc.tfru •'"' ■ ' Xil ixelniqo) bafoasB^'j: bass 6«8t&ts's aestf sn>tv*jxl 

"»iJi: to IsiaJat « y*?" b«V'x:?e i&ed »ef XIxw aoi^t^i/t 

,000tX'| Ttol TgoxXoq. eoiiBUwaai sliX js -so't 6®iX<ic£« coBitfi Bgjsu'T, ,S3ex 

aol^aoiXciQr. srfT ♦xjx.eici'ieHstf as «iai«i©ac£ lliiJaljeXq; ttsxf^oja aid gxiifflon 

siIJ !:{) ©aio::, .a;tC9SJ3 B'*«efe««t^b lo ©eo ^eqiXXirfSi. osJ \-.ef naaCfiif aev; 

d*Jtw ©oHja'Xifaai X«J:'T.;tKW&i)ti balTiso &.Qr£ 'icXIkib'J: iixctsw nrfj "o a*x!»«flHJMB 

•w* T^Xs^^mixoiqcia 'xo'i ^XM^jI ad* anro<n[ bad &«« aawlmQiq, *a®XIc 
iMti:;t ^atJtl: oiii xox «s££ «s2{jH;t esw OBiiBslXqqix 9£f;t ^Bb dx{;t nO tttiM&x 
vism exf i."itfi DoJyo-^^a bKsj «»iitCMl a'teriioiit eirf xi-t iioa^t.aW astaeX waa 
^noacfijw 9.tcmat. bos ttt* bdo-xaa aaw slrfT ♦xoiXt. .., l noi*60xXqqi3 

plaintiff* undertook to pay the preMuas. The policy issued in 

due courser with the application attached thereto* and isas la the 

posseesioa of James Watson until Ms ueath* .June 29> 1933# ref3r<.dant 

vm.3 notified of Watson' s death and proofs cf death were furaiehed* 

%iut upon iarestigati on payment wao declined "by dofendant on the 

ground that aisrepre&eataticms were made im.6 false ansifl^ers g^.ren la 

the application to material questions j as follows* 

"d* Oecupationt if more than one* state all* 

Mature of Jidaployex*& Business* 

Eyde i'arlE High School* 
7* Exaet duties oi Oocupationc 

8« i\ny change ia occupation conteii^)Xated7 


If Yes* give particulars. Ho* 
9» X'lace of Buelnesa* 

otony X Bland :^ve* 

By whoa employed* 

Hyde Park High School* 
10* Former Occupations* (vrithia the last ten years}* 


The admitted facts show that Jajaee Watsoa had serTCd in the 
Pontiae State Refonaatory for a period of approxiaately four years* 
aad was released <m parole February 5» 1933* just fiTe days "before 
the application was atade* He eaae to his death* as heretofore 
stated* June 29, 1933* while engaged in a rohhery. 

The c<mtroTerted question of fact presented to the oourt 
■w&u i^etlaer the answers to the foregoing questions appearing oa 
the application were actually given by insured* or whether they 
■were falisely inserted "by Phillips* defendant's agent* notwith- 
standing infcrmrtion alleged to have been given hia hy Mrs* iiatsOTi 
S.3 to her aon*& eoBueilmcnt in the state reformatory and hie un^H* 
ployment at the tiise applioati<m was made* 

JasteB WatBon never attended Hyde Park high school* aad 

when the application was signed he had no employment* Fannie 

Watson and her aarried daughter* Verna 3)anielsj present at the 
time the application was taken, both testified that they had told 

sif* a^ sfjw f^fis *03Vi9xli hedoBiiM i^t^BeHqqA erf* i(*iw ,geiuoo »«& 

»oB .as*iXx;ol*i^ ©vis t8«Y 'tl 

»9feeai 33V/ no^^BoiiXqqjs okW mC* *b daafinjoXq: 
foas ((Xooiioa rigixi itiij'i sij^ &e&a49^ia xsrea itoaifiW esyaet 

alaiijB''I •^rceancoXi .^ri 9rf beagia e.GW xioi*f.r liBtts 

ndi i& ttt3Be%<i ^aXoittca eJxisV tto*iisuab 69l'XiCBm :t9G baa aoa^JsW 

JbXo* i)srl Tcsri^ :f.Gri;J bailii-esi tiiod tas-Asi eiw "aolieoiXqqs srt* 3tali 

Phillips thrt James vsatsoa had Just Tbeen released from Pontiac 
aad was unemployed. Their testiaony is denied hy Phillips* who 
testified "by deposition* residing in 3few York state iBrhea tba 
cause mis tried. Phillips* tsstimony is to the effect that he 
had never seen Watson "before Fehruary 9» 1933 j that answers to 
the questions propounded were Eiade hy Jrjaes ?fatsoa an<* \'?ritt€sn 
into the applicati<m "by Phillips, as given? and that he had no 
knowlGoge or infonaetioa whatsoever about vr'atson*s prior coHMitment. 

After the proofs •? death were su"hiaitted to defendant it 
learned* upon Ixirestigation* thsit the sjaswere to the foregoiag 
questicms had li^een falsified* and sent Joseph E« iGiXf an inveeti- 
gator* to the wataon home. On the trial Weir testified that he 
asked Mrs. Watson ahout the false answers with ref er^iee to her 
son's attendance at Hyde Park high schooly and she explained the 
matter hy statin,^ that she thought Phillips \»as inquiring ahont the 
school her son had previously attended* Ho other e^^planatioa was 
sade as to this discrepanoy. 

The hack of the application oontaiaa a "Report of Inspection*" 

and the following questions, answered hy Phillipo, not hased on any 

information given Ma hy the applicant, appeared thereoBJ 

*4» How long have you kno.m the applicant? 

Two years* 
10* Are the character of home surroimdings and the 
general position in life equal to or hetter than those of the 
usual high grade mechanic t 
12* *hat does careful inquiry of disinterested and 
reepoasihle persons disclose aa to moral character* past and 
present liabits of applicant? 
Excellent. « 

It is argued hy plaintiff ♦s counsel that these answers, made Taty 

Phillips* were false and tead therefore to discredit his entire 

testimony. We do not thiflk this necessarily follows* PMllipe 

had in fact knom the Watson family for two years. There were 

Bome five or six members of the family* and several of them 

©ffj- jKsifisf &*JB*R :4t©Y waiC ci 5MKil>i:a»"x ♦0oiSi8oqo& x€ boitti'SBi 

cj- s'rBv.'.'rf::.- i^sl: . ■..•^f?ifitfs''" ■ " ' van &fi^ 

OK b«i{ ©r( asffl fcjss jJKaris o« « kq IXXJtri'S ^tf JK>i*,6©lXc[^<» oj^* o;f«i 
,:?iisia*igfl50o lol-iri a^aonim isM€r6 lavyoaijBiiw flei^^iB'solai to ogs^eXwoiBC 

9iii b5»fiXisi<iXs siis b»8 tXoedbe jfeM ^-tiSM 3&-\?i iia satfs&ns^J^s a'HOa 
s,=v^' iiQid£«jRXq3:3 isn'do oH t?)e5R©;?tr, ■tX«it»i~7'OT(j bfiff uoe T9if Xoorioa 

Tgcf5 no &o3,f^cf d'on «!3qiXXiiH x^ fesisweiiB ^eaoiiJesiip sJH-^voXXoI e»rf;f tsiB 

• -■— - ■■" •-■ 'j^ 
axfi'' bits Q^iXtbRtseTtU'S ©sod 'ifl "xsja^^-ioxl' «0X 

odi 1o aaoxK;? etori;^ -■ ■■:^--' ■-•/■ od- Xfi»pe 8'i.L.;. i ■■.^:oq a.. ^^1^^,;., 

blSS ■ -ttf to f^ljJ.jSi Xifl9'£SQ ' »&.X 

X<f ©OJSfa tai©v;Hiii3 aasrfi ;?sr£;? Xsarufoa j ^'ilxi^aSaXg ^d" bsJ^rs*!'!' a;-, il 

sqiXXift^; .awoXIol •?;XJc:ica3®!>on sMd- ifJMo' ... - .^koeiJ:.+ 39# 

carried industrial iasuraaee for wMek Hxillips collected premuma 
at the WatB<m home each week, .a though he had not kaom Jaa^s 
Wateoa two years, he had kBov.ii the other raeaibers of the f&a^ly 
who hore good reputations and were of uaiapeached character, so 
far as the record ehews. *iChere was nothiag iii the horns aurrounding* 
that would indicate Jaaaeb Watooa's delinu^uenay* and if Phillips ia 
fact did aot know of SaMea*& prior commitment to the state rafor- 
Batory» it is not difilcult to \mderstand why the queetioas were 
answered as they were* The an£>wera do not necessarily connote fraud 
or falsifieatiffla so as to discredit Phillips* & teEiimony* 

The principal ieeue of f aet presented lay the record is 
T«4iethsr or not Phillips ^as apprised of Jaaes V/atson*s prior record* 
The court heard the viitnesses and had the opportunity of obserriag 
their deiaieanorj and since the case was fairly tried* we cannot say 
-that the finding ia contrary to the manifest wei^^t of the eri- 
dence. It waf? jjurely a queation of the credibility of the witnesses 
under all the ciroumstancoa of the ca3e» and the court passed oa 
tl^t in finding the iasues for defendant. 

Plaintiff's counsel raises numerous legal queetioasy suV- 
stantially all of nihioh. are hased on the aestuaption that Phillips 
intentionally falsified the answers notvidthstanding inforBiati:)a 
given hiaa "by Mrs. Watson and her daughter that James had Just been 
paroled froa Pontiac* btttf if the court's findings of fact were 
correct, the legal propoBitioos adranced would have no appllcatioa 
to the determination of the case* 

X3efendant*^s counsel cite casea holdiag that representations 
as to previous aad present aaployaent and occupati<» are aatorial 
to the risk, and that false answers pertaining thereto in an 
application for life insurance render the polioy void. ( Hartiaaa 
V. Keystone Ins. Go ., 21 j?s. 466, 477; Itatual Aid Society v* 

8aD3iK*T? fedtfssXXeo eiiUlix^ doMw so'l Boaotssaal imi-xisubml bsH^mo 

a7?;K;rr'ix»«TXi/a sacff set* &s. aitJbiicjH bsw aasifS ,s9.'&£is biocs^t ari^ sb lest 

f>«isic^ a^oimoc •^Iii:,jBa©ooa ^Sii oh uimiasm «*H' ••«•«• ^ad* eus 5««6waca 

♦ Xn©iEjfciJ'sa#" B^aqiXXirf*! rfibsiosi' ou inoi^-aelliftXat xe 

ei ft^oo©^ add yyi bsd'XtatJS-Jiq #osl lo 90aax L&qltiSitnq, 9:11 

»6ioof?'x «o^t s'jHtoa^s" asiKsT. lo 5»8i:«qig;« saw sfiXiiif? jJoii t:o asrfi-siftr 

SBiTt9Q#6 lo Xt Ltmirtq^p wit hM him sowmnits -^sSi b^zn&d itmo sriY 

•Kfjja <a«oi;fQssfp £«£©X sye^nsjaiUfi b&b1«s X«sis«oo s'lli^aicXl 

9139? ioal 'io a^aiftflJc'i 'd'iTmoa edi li titsSi ,os1^ko^ smi'i bsXort/jq 

jKiMa^xgil) .ftlov xs'-iXo?! Bdi t^imo's. Botynsjaai. 8>'iiX tol jEioi^aoiXqQs 


IMtet 100 Pa« St. 12; IBarray t. Preferred /iiociaent Ins» Co«| 
199 Iowa 1195; Call igaro v. Midland Ca siialty Oo. » 211 me. 319| 
Tamer r. Prudential, Ins. Co.« . i! 283 Ill# App» 210 1 Carter t« 
gmployeeVs Ben. Asa'ny^ 212 Ill# App» 213; and Kennedy v. ffcndeatij,!^ 
gas »^ Co >^ 177 111. App* 50.) It Is reasonable to suppose that 
knowledge of a former coHraitaent ould materially affect the risk 
of an applicant! and that the azvBwers made* if false ^ furnish 
ground for rendering the policy reid* 

After a car ef til reading of the record we have reached the 
conclusion that the judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago 
should he affirmed. It is so ordered* 


Bullivan» P. J.> and >^canlan> J.t conour* 

t»oC ♦aetl 3;aBfeJtoofe beig'x glaT'l .t mtOfSuM. iSJC .*a .jb« 001 t,9^M?.' 

"^ rJilS£l5 «OiS .(jqA •III ess «» oO .ag l Xai;fao&jj-x'-i ,t X^iHMl 

Iax ^.jKo &Jir g*t « -^^3 ^^"^ i^-^^ •«!'":': A •III 2XS xS*33^':^.»J!^^a^^@xpJi-:: i 

&mi* »ao«i<jir-i o*^ ■3l«f««Bsae9^ ai ,tl (.03 •q«ii < - . .oi" ,*ac-j| 

riyiis'ii/l: ^asl. . xo^ axavveas srfj iarii^ bos « *fl6soiXqg:a tte lo 

»Di;ov -^oiXotc 9xiS S'^iisbns'x sol bmyots 



Appellee » 

COSPMY, ft corporation, h^ 9 (J I«A. 60 0^ 

A-nnel 1 rant* 1 -^ ^^ \^ ^^ 

a. corpora. tl 


Jean Cook sued as beaefioiary under a policy issued liy 
defendant on the life of Mlllaa Dale Cook, her deceased hus'band* 
The jury returned a verdict in her faror for |5,114, interest 
and oostBf pursuant to which the court entered the judgment here 
fiouglit to "be rerersed* 

Roman Dzlk) one «f defendant's agents $ took the application 
tos the policy Jtme 29, 1933 • A medical examination followed and 
the policy dated July 13, 1933, was issued and deliyered to the in- 
Bured, who died Septeaher 13, 1933* 

The principal controreray arises orer the iesue of fact 
whether the first preaium on the policy was paid 1»y the ineiured* 
Defendant contends that there was no legal delirery of the policy; 
that it WFB 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 Mndlng contract tieoause the first premium was 
nerer paid. Rmnan Dzik testified that he is employed Tiy defendant 
as an insurance Baleosanf that he receired the applioaticm for the 
policy from William iOale Cook, and after tlae policy issued he 
eair'.ed at Cook's home on several occasions and tried to place the 
policy, i^fter t^everal visits he finally went to Cook*s home on 



r ^' " 


t !30Xi:sK3;cjA 

X^ b^aaai YoiXatjt /s te&aw ■^Bioilewatf aa &©irs :^ooO fias'^ 
«i>iiflrfaMd[ b9GB&&9b T©i{ t2l0®O eX^sti BtsxIII^Y lo sill arid fio ;ta,BbrtiJl&b 

-ax orf* oi- bsiarllab bus bewaai e^aw ,SS9I <gX ^-Ci^Si b9*,^.b xoi^^O^t 9^'i* 

.55SX t£X Ts^efais^qao beib oriw t&sTlfa 

&ojs'x lo ouaat Qdt iot© sosIia ■s;aiswiJ'fK»3 Xjaqioci-xfi ©xlT 

• bo-xwajMl adi Ytf bJtisq eaw ^oiXoq 9di no iBwiras^:^ *a^i"l 9£[J i9ifj9i!&v 

j^oiXoq: oiW lo •^:£9TiXs& XsgdX on asw o^grf* ijisxld- abaoinoo JajjftaslsCI 

^?.,Xi«; noirfflttimsx© 10 'i: smii'^'ill sM ^jistiwb iooD riJi'.. yif^l -a^iw it imii 

tj^i bJis iitmbB»li&b odi to ^tjsq osii co coi*i5aJ:Xo'© -(cns ;ftfOil*±w bus 

aem mt.lBKi%<i ^Bttl ^sli ^awaeetf ^otsiitsoQ ^aibald -c ssKrooscT too. btb it 

i3jr{i TO'i noicTaoiXqqa sx£;> 5evi;'>oai sxf i.'sdi jaoiaaeXsa ©oasiutiixl ciis aa 

9Ci bewsai xsxXoq ax:* 'xai'ljs b£ua «3fooO sXxsa xaaiXIlv' aio'xl \;oiXoq 

W&d &o&l<i oi bstxi btm anoiaaooo Xaiovoa no aiaoxl s'atooO ia baZLao 

Atxgtist 9y 1933> together with Walter A. Hyzaok* defendant's 

assistant superintendent* and on that date left the policy with 

Cook for inepeotion* at the same time reeeiying from Cook the 

following receipt i 


Pom 01240 

iriept. 1931 

Printed in U* S. A* 

To the Metropolitan Life Instaranoe Company» 

1 Madison Avenue » He\7 York, 17. Y* 

Heoeipt of i-olioy 8495747A issued upon the life ef 
William D» Cook is here'by acknowledged* it "being expreeely 
agreed that aaid policy is left with the undersigned for exami- 
nation, without obligation on the part of the Metropolitan Life 
Insurance Company v;ith respect thereto. 

It is hereoy imderstood and agreed that the lasuranee 
called for lay said policy shall not be in force unless and until 
the full first premium stipulated in the policy has acbually 
been paid in cash to, and accepted by, the Company dtiring the 
lifetine and continued good health of the person upon whose life 
the policy v^a issued, nor until the policy is endorsed to ehow 
receipt of said premium* 

Bate August 9, 1933 William Dale Cook (Signed) 
Agent Boman Dzik Debit ^o» 161 District Humboldt, 111* 

If signed by Corporation, Hame 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 Uistrict Office and held 
until premium la paid or policy is lifted and returned «Kot 

Notes This form is not to be used in coxmeotion with Accident 
and Health Policies*" 

Dzik further testified that no premium was paid by Cook when the 
application y^a taken, nor ar any time subsequent thereto, and 
that Cook did not gire him any note or other evidence of indebted- 
ness* ITyxack corroborated Dzik^^s testimony that the receipt 'm-B 
Bi0Bed by Cook when the policy was left with him August 9, 1933. 

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 Hyzack, defendant produced Herbert 
J* V^altsr, a handwriting expert, who stated that he had compared 

0j{# 3£80i ;^%'i: a^xtiiesirc 9ai^ 9sm& m^ im ^aoiioQqBStl tot ;tfooO 

X£r '-■-■- -:'• tf it tbs*- '■■•■'■■• "---A?. ©/? rjiatfid mi lio^t) ,0. cat^.ilU- 

£Ums hti.^ ::■ ..:. r^tf? .-■.'::•:,.. ...:. . i/ ^fofv < ' ,„ ,_ .--^1 x^ Tol bsXIfia 

•.K.t ■-■• ■ ■'. mii ^vfi ■ , ■■•/;..■ ,,.'•:>•',■ fiu'vo KJu hlsq «s0<f 

e ..'.'q, aii5 .iidiieo bfljs ®m.tiQ'li£ 

*iXi <„•..., .. -1 •01 :■ 

"•asiajclo'i riciXi<?BH baa 

d;^* ssBtiv 2Co©0 'ed" fi>J«q: atiw «a?iisaag on -^ssdi belli ^aecv rrojcfj^ii/l afiso: 

hii£i iOietfdi ^iifli/yoetfiia affli:.t ^J^is -ta ton ^nsjCi?* a/w ji©i;ti!oiX^e[B 

-aXciqxfe oT .issajjaoi to *sje1;J «i ^giescas bsH ao ■^tx^9qq_ii ^ijj^sitgtB 
tz9<tX9Tl booukiixq, ;^«*£>jcu»^ jb ,:iD«s^K foxxs 3£isa lo %ttoKi$&Bi &d.i iaotsi 

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 Gook» plaintiff and beneficiary under the policyjt 
testifier] that she saw the policy ahout July 20, 1933 ? that until 
Septemher 15, 1933 » the policy was kept in her home at 1755 Web- 
ster avsnue, Chicago; that William Pale Cook died September 13 y 
1933; that July 13, 1933, the date that the policy was left with 
her husband, she saw a note given by her husband to Dzik, and that 
<m that date Pzik also received $34.75 in currency from her hus- 
band; that Cook was buried in LaPayette, Indiana, on September 15; 
that when she returned to Chicago three dajrS 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, 33zik 
called at the Cook home requesting the policy. Defendant offered 
in evidence a rule of the company requiring that the first premi\im 
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. \axm 
Pzik called at the Cook home on the latter date he fotind Mrs. Cook's 
mother and another daughter at home. Plaintiff was not present; she 
was then attending the fimeral of her husband. Mrs. Cook's mother 
does not speak I'nglish, and Dzlk explained his mission to the Asxx^- 

II ami iadi 5 SSei (OS ijXff", voJtXOff ©ri* w»a »f{o ;tjBrf^ balllrfae* 

-rfef QdVX d'a ©Moxi %©/{ «i ;tQ»3i£ asw ^o-t-toq djd* nS£€X tclX 76^fiie$q«S 

t^X :j9cfaj©*(3:9ci bslb 3iooo ©XeCC aisiXXivi ijaa<^ j^jgolifO «&u£t©Ta ze^a 

-ajarf *?»££ skotI ^snwi-x , t bsriaoet oaXJB ills 

S 3X torfmsj^qtVi ao «Btts5i2)«I « 3**«x;-*1iiisJl nl 6©iT:iifirf ajew SooO tfijrfji jdnaef 

©ffj o;f ^«!^ m<'^ssB'mdd • ., : ?jXj:/oo t(M \zlS.oq ©ifit *io'J, 

•xo't sM fcaul®. f . iijsbradfeb siJ* 'ic aoiilo ilc«*!'xcf 

eqoXsvmi /xa kx 4^ci.9Ji: aaw -^oXXsq; eifi' ;^£xl;^ aad-ajifl bsl^Wao* SooO «eiM 
b©fi3ia ^asET?^ ttm.tfliQ'sq •stel iqlBXisi >« s«U:bi!Xoiii ««a3qaq i[axt*o if*Jtw 

bota'ito inAimBlaCk vYoiXoq 9tii -galiaQupfit ^j^ori 3I00O aii*! ;t£ b'eXXeo 

b9bni>ixa aifit "io &«» ssi^ asm iiuU •EifVmstf 2X 'xs^ae^qQa Xo-^'Coti ad;t 10 It 

rs^rfv? tOieiGiii tci^ a^jib ow* boib bad afooD Jaxl* BUiwece^ ioa i&oiiaq 

a'^ooO .BtM fefi»o"5: oil e^Bb xQsiiAl ael#, nc »«oii iopO 9fi;t in fcaXXao iliisa 

aria (itnea»Y«[ ^en a«w I'lid'wJUxXi .©ffloxJ ^a tsid-BU&b x^ntiiotm baa -XBtHQm 

•TQsiiom a'afod© .i3*s3f »fjae(fa««f •lari lo In'SGaul sAi a*tJt&«9*»f« «oif^ a«w 

ter. According to Dzilc the xaother lianded the policy to him in an 
envelope, tut be states that there was no reoeipt in th« enyelop® 
and that he had never signed any premium receipt. He took the policy 
with him and returned it to the homo office "because the first pr** 
miuiQ had not been paid* 

Dolores Klinka> plaintiff's sister » testified that DaiJc 
called at the Cook home September 15 and that she tcld him Mxz, Co^k 
was attending her hushano's funeral; that Dzik requested the policy* 


whicV^linka aaid was kept ia a yellOTr envelope in the bookstand in 
the living room. She handed the envelope to Hzik, who put it in 
his pocket and walked away* TUxq v.ltness said that ahe aeked I^ik 
to return the policy* but he refused to do so» and left. 

Mrs. Sarah McOollum, mother of inQured* testified that she 
talked to Dzik in the presence of plaintiff at the oii'xce of defend- 
ant about a week after the fiineral and asked for the policy which 
Dzik had taken from the Cook home; that ISzik said the policy belonged 
to him, and refused to return it* 

Sofia Kliaka* 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 all 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 f34«73, the first premitoa hereunder* is her^y 
acknowledged, (aigned) V/. G. Tletoher* Secretary.* It is argued 
by defendant that inasmuch as the receipt is not countersigned by 

iteO '•8T3i ffiM 5£o* »^e ?«Mf* i>JHU8 SI •i9iMei^&S »m>A siooO sif* tfa belLan 

■afcl- *Jt *Ji^ 4»f* W3fiB^ Oif oqel&irfia «rf;t fes&jsfirf: erfS •taoo'S gaiYil fast;? 
,^lsX Bms «oa o& o* b&fsss'in'X. »sl iu4 t^oiXCMi SiS-* £n«;JS'r ©* 

doiifw ^oxXoc( 9ii* "xo'i &®aififi fens Xflt&xii/'i sii? t©*li^ 3f3>aw « *«©</« iaa 
59aJTOX9«f ^©iXoii 9*?* feiaR :^J«I£' ^jBJfsJ tesraosf sfoeO aaEf^ eacncl ne.A«# b&ti ilsCL 

♦ ^■.i: «wc>'3t «4- b»eu'iet bus ,fliM o* 

« SX ■ t6cfffl»4-<j9e »«o^ :rfooC ai'i* e* ©mso yHisC. ii^jfiA bvi^is ^t^^exi^'x^iai 
eria iiisii pjolleq art* Tto^i tasiOXoCf. ^iBi^aj&b tQd b&Majs bos «S€©X 
sld 111 is. -Jiuq n^t siiJJisi Q& hsatit&*i 9d iMdi feeas ^mhi cS il »y«b 

■■.£ B*iw Yo-f^-toq oiU 00 mujMiBiqi Sa-xlt ail5 lo XXb -co ifr&q b ij&di 
Xd" bBts&tQ'ieitoJoo ion ai rftjie^s't axf* an douma BUl asbaslab x^ 

some agent of the company, it is ineffectual to prove payment of 

the prarolum* Howeyer* a notation Tselow the seoeipt and algnatare 

aforesaid merely states that "this receipt is not Mnding upon th$ 

company ■until the premiura has actually heen paid in cash," mi»J 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 ccmrt's attention to sec. 1 of the provisions of the policy, 

printed in very fine type, vvhioh provides that - 

••All prealums are payable, on or before their due dates, 
at the Home Office of the Gojapany, or to an authorized Agent of 
the Company f but only in exchange fox the Goffipr,ny'E official 
preioiiua receipt signed by the President, Vice President, AOtuary, 
Treasurer or Secretary of the Company and count -?rti{paed by the 
Agent or other authorized representative of the Company receiving 
the paycaent." 

In our opinion this provision does net specifically apply to the 

initial premium, but seems rather to cover preiaiims payable after 

the policy is issued and becomes effective. 

As a further indication that the initial premitua was paid, 
we find in defendant's sworn answer, under sec. 2 thereof, the 
follOTsing averment! "That the said policy and receipt for part 
of the first premium were delivered to the agent of this defendant 
upon his request." This is clearly an admission that at least 
part of the first premium \7aB paid and that a receipt therefor 
was isaued to the insured during hia lifetime. It is plaintiff^s 
contention that the yellow envelope containing the policy taken 
from the Cook home also included the r eceipt for the firat premium 
and came into the possession of the company with the policy after 
6ook*B death, and evidence tending to support this ccmtention was 
submitted for the jury's ocaisi deration. 

Still another circunstanoe tending to support plaintiff^ 8 
contention that the first premium was paid appears from plaintiff's 


• Snlibisiif 9ia!0O9tr 

lo #119^. bssi-xoitcrw* XW5 0? 10 « irfi' lo s&±110 sfltoH Slid- Jr. 

©iiv* Ytf imrCiQ bus \.. JXl4 l£0 \;sjGiiiXo3c. -st) 1 • 

..•-:■.: .......'■■ "»., *ji©in\;sf.l o-tfi 

iflj od r.lfK^ \-XXR0ilio354a io-e aeot* jDt^Jttcilw^ bM^ mtaiq,o wo «tl 

@di ^tostedt s .09« -li^bsm ♦■swam a^wi? «»taAttfotft& al bail sw 

ffljwJ^s^itl ^a-sll ®K* ml *«£ie>«« 'i flWliJ' bafeiiXooi <&3Xs sffioxi atooO oilS iHO-i'i 
•i9;Jl:ja \:oiXoq ©rid rfJiw ^jjaaqiao ©ri^ "io noXaaaaaoq ad* .i|||L| awso bus 

« Me x^»T95i9ji39 p a *Tr«|. . ®^ to^ bo^d' iaicfi/a 

t®3timoay» "i.ia;oreiu siie stated that she first saw tlie policy alsout 

the midf^le of July, 1933, ixi an eavelope which Dzlk handed to her 

husliand.} that the envelope also ooutained another paper* whxl«/nas 

tostifying, counsel for both sides interposed numerous ohjeotions, 
and flncilly tae uourt elicited frum the witness the statement that 
the paper iu the envelope contained the words "Metropolitan Life 
Insurance Cor.pany," and the amount #34«73", and that it waa signed 
"by jjsik. It al£0 appears froia plaintiff's testimony that she saw 
her hushand give 'Dzik soEie ikoxusy on lihat date, and evidenoe of 
these ciroumstajiicee was subiaitted to the jury for its consi derail en • 
.Another indication tending to support plaintiff's contention 
appears from the follo\»ing eridonoei Lzik went to the Cook home on 
the very day that the insured was being huried at Lafayette, Indiana, 
EM&. procured the policy under rather extraordinary circumstances. It 
is not entirely olear why he should har© called for the policy at all, 
and especially on that day. Dzik claimed that the poliqy was volun- 
tarily given to him lay Mrs* Cook* a mother, but there is evidenoe that 
it Was taken against her liirill* In this counectlcm, plaintiff's 
coiinsel calls our attention to a portion of 'ji)zxk*B cross-examination* 
He testified that he took the policy from the Gook h(»ae and gave it 
to Miss Basoom at defendant's office on the following day* Then appear 
the following questions and answers a 

'*^* i^uid you don't know what she did with it? 

A* 90, sir* 

^k• You haven't seen it since? 

A* ITo, sir* 

^* Sid you turn over the entire envelope to her? 

A* T^verything that I had. I^ got a receipt fr(m Mrs. C ook's 
hone — the policy from Mrs. Cook's horned •• Vltalics" oursTT 

In abstracting this portion of the record defendant's counsel entirely 

omii the sentence Italieised, and in vieur of all the circumstances of 

the case vre think the testimony of Daik on cross-examination is qtjd.te 


iadi iaoas&iiiiia adi aaaxuTxw &iii mafi ^^xolta fiuev arr* xXIamil btcz 
olkJ. m&i iloqcitsW s&iovr &di baahaiaoo aqeXavas add ni ^9cT«ti ©f!^ »3ria ^fflxij lyaoisii^asd s'lli^ciBlo. eaoit'i sisEnaqqc; oals it' *ili&(Z ^ 

jtio 9Iho;. .,.,„. . -.:..-. -u: .._..,...:.■.,;_ .-.:. ■ . ,,-^ . 

ills im ^oiXot? sii;^" '£«'i A»Xi&o snr^iii &JJJox£a sxt ■^crtw iBdlo ^jli&ilin® ioc ai 

-zurlOT S4irf ^ffilloq, »£Li *siX* fosfflijsl© UlsfX •■^afe #»ri* '«0 t-CJ^iO®?*'© fe«^ 

<?.eil* ©onabiv© ei a-xeiij- jorf «'i3ii*oza e*3iooD .asM "t^ aixrl o^ aarln xltrsi 

4r!Oi:^aflii3amx©-'a«a*i'o s'atlsCi 1:© tiot^io.,. - _,. aoi.?«fi)#*ii xuc alLco Xsaawoo 

Ta9aci.B w»£JT «V0fo >-4nivjoIXol ©jiJ xjo ©oi'X'lo a*#/iJ6&fl&loij ;tr iaoodsS aaXM o* 

ifi'xawajHjB fastis t5floJt3^83i;p QixiviOlXol sxf* 

'fii iiixw ftii) siriti ^iuiw wo«3i 3'«o5 ttdi^; buA .^i" 

•lis ,01 »A 

(•ij'xsiro i5.: . ,■ ' :> .■;g[ axfa* -- 9i^cri 

lo yooiiaJafiBJOixo eri* XXiJ lo waiv «!■ fttto «65slolXii*i ooaeiasn axirf >1«» 
siMjjy 3x ao liBiiiMBxe- 8ax>'<:o no ::fiN<I "lo M;aoiHl;t89* adi atnixi* sw oaso ©xtd' 


There is also the oircumstanee th&t notice of the seoond 
premitim due on the policy, delivered throu^ the mails, reached 
plaintiff* B home sometime after September 20, 1933. Thus, approxi- 
mately one week erfter the death of insured the company was sendiag 
a notice for the second premiiim. If the first premium had not been 
paid, as defendant contends, it is difficult to understand why 
notice of the second premium mses forthcoming* 

Moreover, there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to 
v/hether insured signed the inspection receipt left hy Xteik August 
9, 1933 • Evidence pro and con on this issue was submitted to the 
Jury, and it may well he that the jury were of the opinion that 
Dzik did not sign this receipt* and of course in that event there 
would loe no hasis 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 careful examination of the entire record we are 
satisfied that there was ahvmdant evidence to support plaintiff ♦s 
contention that the first premixm was paid when the application 
was made, and that the suhsequent delivery of the policy consiimmated 
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 evidence the insurance policy upon 
which this suit is based. However, before trial defendant took some 
depositions in lirtiieh the policy was put in evidence by defendant. 
Under the circuastances , it was not ia a position to complain when 
the policy was later introduced by plaintiff. In any event, we see 
no reason why the policy should not have been received as an exhibit. 

ds4©jsffi« «eXJuB« sa'^ ^tfoiiia b^x^vH&b t^oiloq &iU no nub ©HiKstcf 

;f8tfs*'A jlisii ^tf ;t'i«ii Jjjii'OS'z jeei^oeqeni sii;r feaflaJte &s:iifaja;j; ladSetS^ 
SiSii 8>S f)»##i»c/H!!i saw ^tsutui ^.idi «© jyjto bBfl o ^Xji; ©ofisfeiTE .fiCQi «G 

*jHoj:4osqaix,l; lo saoq-suQ; ©ff,1 xo^ \J[.b£qb sfooO 

>»# aiaiatfttAo ^oilocj sri* 'io ^^isTlXeb ^netjpeacfua of£* ^«if* bna t®E^«ffi saw 
S5?)bn«#HOo wO« ai il *issabtiBlQb bei& bQtunni. flo6w*»cf HoiiojEiOiieij^ erf* 

i-xvoo eidt ijuii fcagjiu; ax #i Xfisisvaa To'i iimroa-s bceosa ^ aA 
smlMlqfBxio ^Babifielaa *»8aabiT« lo aoiaaiia&B »ri^ co IfllXwt ni baitt© 
fioqu -^oiXoKi oowa'icafttjwi orft s^nablra at b9c?#iaf&,a ^iwoo 9ri;f ©Qwfioaef 

.iflafona'iob x^ son^3&Xv» Hi tuq saw TjciXoq; «Mf* d&Mvr itl Bjreoi*iiBoq:©b 
.cfirfirixe «« «« beTl80«« a»»rf wait i«« faXi/oiia XoiXoq ericT xriw n»a««i w* 


ftnd in itB Tsrief counsfel do not seriously argue the points 

It is atfjct la-ged that the court erroneously admitted 
evideace relating to oonTersations had with Dzik at the timo hs 
obtained the i^olicy from plaintiff's home. Hie complaint oharged 
tha,t tile polioy bad oeen taken from the hoae lay Dzik without por- 
misBionf and th^ answer admitted the taking l9ut denied that it waas 
without thfcj consent of plaintiff's mother. That heing the issue 
vuidei thfc pleadiii^s» xr, was proper to allow an examination of the 
witnesses relating to the ooourrence in question* 

It iii farther contended that the court improperly asked 
plaintiff feome ^.uestioas with reference to the contents of the 
enrolope in v«fhich the polioy was contained. An examination of the 
record disc loses that prior to this examination counsel for the 
parties had Toeen objecting to the questions and indulged in bickering 
oyer the competency of questions propounded > and the court finally 
aisked the questions in order to clear up the evidence . Under the 
cireumstanees it was net improper for the court to do so. The question 
whether or not a receipt had heen giren Insured for the first premiTaft 
Was an issue t and defendant's answer adialts that part of the premtua 
was paid. The questions interposed by the court related to the evSb- 
Jeot matter of the pleadings and was pertinent to a in&t<^rlal isfme 

It is next argued that plaintiff was asked the leading ques- 
tion whether or not she saw her husband pay Szik my money when the 
policy was delivered, iil though the question was leading in form» it 
was not objectionable* because tfyzaek* while teetif jrlngy stated Ihat 
no money had been paid to "Dzik, and this was in rebuttal of that 
item of evidence. Certainly it was not sufficientferobjeotlonable to 
merit any consideration aa a gr©\md for reversal. 

-•sfXT ,i rnxut J>7 sflr .1. ^oi'i aeaCai aafecf iaad ^oi^oq; &di i^di 

aijtv ii'i ., .:,.. ...; -.iiJtjLe* sdi &&*^te'. > •'■■•i*^fti) sjji^f "feaa ^xjoiaaia 

s£t,+ >'■ r-" ' vnxr.i.i.;xo ., , .;._;.. .;w w.,;ar ijoiXoq £i£l;f rfolcki' Hi. ©^oISYa© 

•Zll^ait #^000 9jS# bus ,59bnwog-o«c aijol^aiiip W^ofi9#oqi«a *ri[* lato 

noJ.;a:;>.uy . • '• " '' ' Twoo oxf* 'xol ;:-!,;-..■ ^.^wl *dii BflW *1 staoEts^aiawo'xio 

attiiiSB'f- vwaxii jctsviji tts®rf bail i-qJtao»T: a *ojei nco terfi'^iriw 

BuiJir ■ i'^;. .:.isii.^ aJ'liij&jB I9wr8ai:i 9*^/si86iBsl&?i baa «3i;aai n^s a,Bv; 

^„.,^. t r,. >.^. .-.*„,,, „ Q^ ittfititireq as'- *---- -■-rr'-'' —.''■: -'•'.'• 't- --^^t^sK tfo^i, 

^ rjSYXoTfiJ; 

Bd* neirfw At^noiK T«b alxsG te«ij l>fl«(fBUi£ "cari wae sde iott to iraxljJ sriv-r «oi:d 
:^.t jKtot ir^ ^-nih.-.s/ :!- ^< mvr.+ a^^wp eflJ X^f)rfj> XA * fjo^sTiXab bbw X^tloq. 
vMxtr ftp.' , „;.:... tiossyltt ©eirsostf «©XrfaaoWo3t«fo *oa «i*w 

i&aotiaer eoa^teijivioa 1b that the court erred in ndmittiixg 
the eviaenoe ox jolores lilinka euad oofxe Kliaica with refereuoe 
to the taking oi the policy by Dzi.k beptembar 15. fhe ooEplaiali 
charged that tha policy '.»&s tsjcea vi(it;hout parmiesion* and it was 
proper i"ox plaiatirf to adduce evidence upon thia isaiie of fact* 
It is next urged that error wais ooEHuitted v.'ith reference 
to instruotioaa. Jxcept for the regular stock iufcitructioas* as 
to «/liioh tlisre i3 ao codiplaint* there were only two instruotioaa 
off erect oa behalf of plaintii'f . The prinoipai objeetion to these 
Instructiouu i« tiiat they injected into the case the eleEient of 
prool of deatlio V/e find from the reoordf hovfcy«^r> that defendant 
stipulated in the course of the trial that the injured died &epteinber 
15 » 1935, and was buried at Lafayette i Indiana, L>eptei&ber 16, 1933* 
In Tiew of this admission the instruotioas oould not hare prejudiced 
defendant* we have road the instructions, and when coaasidcred as a 
series they apprised the jury fully and fairly aa to the isoues in- 
volved, and are not subject to any of th« criticjSsms xaade* 

The only reataining ocsatention is that the judgtaent should Ise 
reversed because the jury by its verdict took the comimafeed value of 
the policy as the measure of damages, whereas on its terms the policy 
called for only $50 a month* This question ie raised for the first 
tiate on appeal. Mowhere in the proceeding was it argued that the 
damages were excessive* The question was not raised during the 
trial, on the motion for a new trial or on the motion in arrest of 
judgment. It is a well established rule that points not made upon 
the trial cannot be made for the first time in a court of review. 
( Hovotnj r^ v. Aoaoia M utual l ife Ina* Go* , 287 111* App* 361.) 

The case was fairly tried, the issues of fact cubmltted to 
the jury were determined adversely to defendant wider proper instruc- 
tions, and vve find no convincing reasons for reversal.The judgment i» 
affirmed. JUDCBCaiT AFISIRESa 

Sullivan, P. J*, and c^canlan, J*, concur* 

emQia^T <£*£» jsitoilX ®i"i©«i &as8 Jso&BxXfi wertoloii io «M»«4>i>xvs arid 

.fz. . . -><Hmi^&'=> ,jsaai?3ai «**49X»i«=i ^is &»istf5f e^ fe«w «^«^1 •« 
..i,tw3fii sAia&aJtd^itQ axi^ "to xsm at #»»i<fi^« i^a a'^^ l«» ,.&&irIov 

!to ^eaT:T/j «i ii«)x,toH siiJt «» ^o X^ii* w#« © fft-i xioi^ea erf* co ,Xai^vi 
m^u erhmi io« aifiioc^ *iuia ©X*« ba^ulXaViiea XIw « el *I .Jmetisfowt 

, , . , - , ;;ii>iiivflOO oxx bvixl sw fcns iBHoXS 



GU^^iASTY QCMFAM, a corpora tionp ) 


T. ) COOK C(X31ITY» 

^^ s^ATH. ^^^^^^^^^ I 2 9 I .A. 6 1"' 


This appeal preaents the question of the legal sufficiency 
0? a complaint filed toy the United States Fidelity & Gunxanty 
Company ags-iast Al\)ert Sabath* The court allowed defendant's 
motion to dismiss » and plaintiff* baring elected to stand "by 
its. complaint » judgment was entered in favor of defendant* end 
this appeal followed* 

In paragraph 1 of the complaint it is alleged that plain- 
tiff was and is a corporation licensed to transact husiness in the 
states of Illinois and Wisconsin; that on June 1» 1928» Greenspan- 
Greenherger Coippsny comifleaoed an action in the civil coxurt of 
Milwaukee coxuity* .visconsin* naming Millard's* Ino*? as defendant; 
that the nheriff of Milwaukee county* by virtue of a writ of 
attachment in said suit* attached the personal property of Millard's* 
Inc., of the value of ^>2*000o 

Paragraph 2 alleges that on Jxine 1, 1928* Millard's* Inc.* 
to regain possession of said property* it being necessary to that 
end under sec. 30^*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* Inc.* should pay all costs, did* on June 1* 1928* 


3 ,TBA*i«(>0 YTHAHAUD 


-amv^n^&td «82©I «X sxu/Ti no ifidi {Mxanooai-r bito eionilXI to 8s*«i3 

S&di oi Tj-ssiiaaosn salad il ,x*ttaqoa{j &i.RQ lo noiaeceaog. nixs^s^ o* 

(;ea«I'X <X onx;'.- « "..i <|Ri'JDO XX-*.. Yfiq faXworfe ,.onI «a'5'XjBXXB! & 

■!■ .■•?,'-( 


meke application to plaintiff to fumislx such "bond and agreed to 
afterward furnish plaintiff an application in writing for such "bond* 

Paragraph 3 alleges that Alhert 3ahath» defendant » la order 
to induce plaintiff to furnish such hond, did» on or betsseen the 
first and fourth days of June* 1?28» proioise and agree with plaintiff 
that if it would furnish stich "bond he would indeiatiixy plaintiff Xroa 
and against any and all demands y liahilitiet3p cxiaiges and escpensieei; 
of whatever kind and nature > which it aX^t at any time sustain "bj 
reason of haring executed such hond} and tlmt uefendant would after-' 
ward reduce to writing and sign and deliver to plaintiXf the proaiae 
and agreement* 

Paragraph 4 alleges that upon said application and agTeement 
plaintiff y June 4^ 19289 executed and furnished in Bald suit its 
"bond, in and hy which it did, jointly md severally with Milard^s, 
Ino«y promise and agree according to the tenor and effeot of s^siid 
Isond, a copy of which is attached to iiie complaint as e.-chibit "A* 
and made a part thereof* 

J?aragraph 5 alleges that June 7, 1928, Hillard»s, Ino., 
delivered to plaintiff its application in writing for said ivoadj 
and oa the eame day defendant, in pursxjiance of hie oral promiee, 
executed and delivered to plaintiff his written agreement, in and 
"by which defendant promiaed end agreed to indemnify and save mrmleas 
Ijlaintiff herein, copy of the application mid ugreexoent also being 
attached to and made a part of the complaint, as exhibit "B** 

Paragraph 6 alleges that in the civil court proceeding in 
Milwaukee county judgment was rendered against Millard' sp lnc», 
February 9, 1926, for |1, 935.77 and costs, that execution issued 
thereon and was returned unsHtisfied by the sheriff, Millard, Inc.o 
having been adjudicated a bankrupt in the United States District 
Court for the eastern district of vdsconsin. 

4biicd iisua 'xo'i ^niiltv at aBOiiMoJilqfiB tm Viliahilq Aattrxul b'ssv'X9i'ie 

tas&'ii^^ica ido^ ae|ii-£.<:iui3 iiiel^'tltiBxl tahaenemb 11^ bas xaa Sanla'gA ba» 
•^ filAiiM& affiid' y^etki *s iJl^ica ifi: xSolrfw ^sitsisat bos bal£ iQYBiisdw lo 

4:tix@m?:>»tr3B bos 

;taaJH'36^« Mib as-'i^'i'C'AXv'iqxi t.x/;* fiyqu sgaj j^^;'jg9J„L.G S' xiq^xs/stte^i 

tiSi^btMxliM dilv.- xllB'Ssr&B bits xlittiol ^blh il xioMv, \tf bim n't ,fe«ocf 
felsa 1© #o!>l^© ana laa&S 3di oi i^subTOooB ssrsjgija bun esinprtq tioal 
"A" 4^JtcriJix9 ae 3 iai aXqiSC' o <>x# oi- bz^dosii-o al doiMm lo ■^q:o» a ^faxsocf 

. locsisif:? ixaq a sbsm baa 

«»Oii- ^ i: 'DM;.';aiiii tc>;:.t:i. < -v ».iiij(> j^.u.v <..m5}8XX« Q J'I<|Sttg«'XB'4 

nbficxi bkaei «o 1 . aiti* iiw nl «K»±^jao±X<iq.8 e#i 'tlljaiBXii 0* &9'£s>vJtX36 

^e&itaoifi lexo bM 'to dosxua&tuq ai t9BJibm>t&b -^t «»Ksa ejci:t ne &£cs 

IkOii £(b ( inftfuofiii^ &i6t,ittia aid 'ti.iiai&£fi ai foe'csviXab bsssi b&^uoexo 

aisiecf oaXi^ tfK*ffl{»i»'i8» &ifij tt&l*csiiXqQ« e^* 1« Y^Oo tnl^'xsrf lliJril^Xq 
• "S:" ;Ji:oltfxa asu « *xscJ:;3XctaJOo sdJ lo *Xi»q s a&jaia 6Hfi o;> borfc.sS;*is 

,«ohX t a < frTaXlim *B(«lci.i ^. -o >.wv . .Birr inssfiigbxjj; ^*ituoo e»©:ito8wXB<f 

&9«aei aoiJifoaaco ^«ji{* ,B^r}po ftiae fT.«fie«I^^ tol «9a«X «© y's: aw^tf®'^ 

( ^MeXXJtM «tll'iejiiQ sfirf ^jfl" fo» il« r yVvvam; beinjjd'ai asw baa H09T^if;^ 

Paragraph 7 allegee tbat ifovecibST 7» 192S» suit was bagun 
In 1.he Circuit court of MllT?aukee eownty "by Gree^nepan-Sreenberger 
Compeny B.g=lnr,t Ch&.rles PchalHtz, sheriff of Milws-uJcee co-dBtyj 
Alphonee J. I^ynch, deptxty sheriff and oMef olerk of acid soimtys 
Unite:? rotates "fidelity ^n-l (Jaaifanty Coapaayj and the ^idslity and 
Deposit ■"',Qm::jp>.ny of Marylaadj tih-jt the ocsaplaiat alleged* c-dEoag 
other things, r\ cause of action ftgainst plaintiff herein upon said 

Par».gr;5iph 8 alleges that inadvertently and hy Kintake 
plaintiff <?xecttt3d[ ojad dslivcrcd to the gheriff of Kllwaiikee county 
a bond in attaohment* which vrae accepted and filed ^y the sheriffs 
and th^t the shsriff rolsased the property of Millard* 6, Ino.> 
seized imdt^r thf> attaciimeni writ pending the ontccBie of the oiril 
court proceeding. 

Peragyepii 9 allege© that Sahath wns duly notified of said 
proceedingti against plaintiff buA others in the Oiroidt court of 
Milvmukee county; th^t the defense thereof was duly tendered to 
Sahs-th, &nd that he v^holly refused to aasune the undertakias thereof? 
that plaintiff thereafter employsd its mm ootinsRl, and aade defen?»e 
to ssid procseding» and X"»ece7aher ?.9, 19.'5S, judgmeat was rehdored 
agninst plaintiff herein for |3»448fc87f that in said trial the court 
was required to file, ?\ncl die! fil®# It? certain findlnse cf f&ct and 
conclusions of law, wherein and t^herehy the esid "boiad wpp construed 
"by the court to he in Is/t and in fact & "bond cwiforming to the re- 
quirome^its and provisionp of sec* 304«07 of the Wiseonein statuteB, 
a copy of Raid findinge heing attachet,' to the cnaplaint v-b exhihit 
"C", and made a part thereof* 

Paragraph 10 of the oomplaint alleges that said judgment 
remained in full force and effect* and wholly unsatisfied; that 
plaintiff » Decejiiber 29, 193S, as a coiapromise settlement and in full 

'S»ig'i9d'n»»'i4)-rw<j[aaf96'T^> i^ff ij^iWfcr? sear's?/! -t , ;;■. ,,1. ' 

;•:-..' nn;-- 'j^»{.u>-<wIJ:M : < sJt.XI.'srlr/-' m^Zr.&iiO iaatf^m YfvaqmO 

iVi^W' .'ill© fxHa lUitdifra •^f'#»i!M«ft ^rf^n^,-!; ,T, ft'^norfrrjrA 

. ferrotf 

X^mroo gsjCuc^TXlSf iQ llii-iajcta f- t«vUs& fate fc»fia¥»3ib*' TtiJfJKl/sX'J 

;: lli-iorCa 6r{c^ x^ h^lfi bns b&SqsooB now rfolrfv ^ $ miadoaii » ' tit Iwiorf" a 

,;itti?)o»oo*xtj * 11/00 

fistofccs^ asw :fjaoa^,?>ift <S£' ■" , 'tfmsasC ban ,-Ejiife«a©©a5 feJt.flB o* 

-ifi '■ rrtanolricD fcnod" ■ ': fata vjbX fii ^fj' 0^ j-ti/oo Qdi \(ti 

*ntjxi3?.b, .Ksjij a«8aXX*i *JHi«XqMcoo 9Xt^ lo OX dsi&T%&'L&^ 

isatlefaetior. of said Judeiaent, pa.U! to GreeKspaa-are afeeiger 
aompariy tlxo sum of #a»436«06, and tliat plaintiff incurred, in the 
def.?ns9» sjettlaaenfe ami satiffifaotioa of ssdd prooeedtn^?!?, ?ar!f?ltl«»nal 
llaTailitieSf oiiargea aad expensea as and for atfeorn«3rB» feee, costs 
an<i dlslsurseia'sats, ia the eua of |730, all to plaintiff's ecaag©. 

la conolusioa It is alleged tj^t* under the teras rnd prcri- 
slcas of l^e said indenture &g7ea&@nt»def«!ndaat Iseoeise li%>;le to p^ 
plaintiff the stm of |2»436.05, together witli Buoli sdcitional lia- 
'Dilitiaa* ohaiffes and expensee in tiie sxsa of ^750» aad aakad judg- 
ment for the svBtt of iSSpOOO* 

Inanajuch aa the controrexsy ia baced on the fora of "bond 

fumiPhed \,j plaintiff scid aooeptsd '©;/ t&e skeriff of imwauketB 
county, 'fire t'it the 'bond forth In full* as follows* 

f^as'D or la^^sMiJiTi TO •sstd m:mrFF* 

Know Aai Men 3y These Preacnta, THst we, Millard* a Incor- 
porated, as irinoipal, &nd United Btntpe Ildellty aiiti Guaranty Co* 
ae sureties, are hel<? and firaily bound unto Charlen r.chaliita, 
r>liaiiff of tlie County of Mlvaiakee , in the: r^ian of Four Thousand 
Dollar;', to "be paid to ths ssid Oharl©?- 3challlta, hie exeoxitors, kit rat or a or aaslgne, to wMoh payment vrell aiid truly he 
aade, we .jointly and sft^^erally hind oura«?lT«s, our heirs, exocjutorn 
and administrators firmly hy these prassinta. 

Bated June 4, 1928* 

Vhoreas, an att>aatoent Issuina out of the .llvll Jourt, iu 
and for tho County of Milwriikee , in favor of GrsonapaJi, Greenliargar 
Co* jyaci ag&iust Millard* b. Inc., has Ijsen dirj^cted tnO ci-jlivertc' to 
the BM,id Ch;;rleE Lch&llitz, ^hsriff cf the Jcuaty of i;il«auk'4«, hy 
Tirtue of AXiioh the eaid uherifi, at the request of the said irceuspan, 
(SresenB'berger Co* hao seiieed ft ieried on (jerteia psrsonal propexty» 
to-wi t * 

Rexohandi«3e to the extent of |kL>836«50* 

Kow, Therefore, The oondition of this -Vollgatioa Ib aueh, 
that if ths bfiid I'nited atatee I'ideiity and Ouerenty Co. t Millard's, 
Ine», ehall "^ell aad truly indeaaify and cave hansileBS the saiil ChisrleB 
Cchallitz, ih':riff iiorsfsaid, hiii deputies and peretaie acting under hie 
or their authority, sad 5ach and every one of thera, r-gsiinst all taats, 
actions, Ju^'grncnts, feXGcutlenn, trouhltsg, oostu, aharges and ejcpamses 
arieing, or whloh aitty he had ox against hiia, them or any of them, 
or vrhich may he suff «5red cr eustniaed h; hisu, tiieai or any of than, hy 
roaBcaa ox in oons^qutunoe of suah levy and eeissure, or of the suhscquerit 
prof!'?edings thereon, ivithout lisoit as to the ^vtiQwxt of said -s^jst^, 
charges ;and exponsea, whatover thsy may ha, then this obligation Id 
he void, cthandse to he and reraain in full fore©. 

^r>Kr'-r .sr.-.f,- „ s.p.-> ^^riv ■■■•'■iie<j3Cd 6jsi3 at;;.) .....,, ^usJb^iXicf 

«ooo,ei| lo wt/!^ ' ^ - r< ''—SI 
htt^ lo jatTQl ©fJi out hoBM^ ai x*'-*»'Wit*aco ©xli a* rlcur. 

ta?/oIXot <-fl «XIw'i «i if^T^t fenorf or- < nwoo 

*dO x; ' , • " ' t ^ • ■■:■■■{ 

, , , Oi «'»T/5XX0!l 

^t.Juiiu^i'sq au.,ii^ T^u .\Xi-'-i'2 aroijetr^ulaiah.^ baa 

i.\' <. ' ' .' 'to 3uv 

r&'i '. to to : 

(\,ii«qoiq: X£4Scsa«Q fli.KJl^o Be 6»^«X * b»siaa eia4 ♦oo j 

a.tri iv»fcjRW ' t 

'^U^.f t A pfi-'-, • 

•'■•■i .'. 

!;>:'.' v.s m: < 

^; t,i< 'ro V. 

• tot boo 

^ L'i . .... ...1. .-v. 

- 7 

Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of 

Eugene H. Aokerraan 
KoBe G* J?, 

Millard's Inc.* 
By Lannrence Hexuoann 

United States Fidelity axid Quax anty 

3y George Hoff 

Attorney in Pact 

Piled Dec. 16, 1929 

C* C* Haas, Clerk." 

Prom the material facts alleged in the ccanplaint, which 
stand admitted by defendant's motion to disiaisa, it appears that 
suit had been brought by Greenspan- C*eonberger Company againet 
MillardB, Ino.» and the goods of the latter were seised oa a judg- 
ment isrit. In order to secure the release of the goods, it became 
neoessiary for Millard* s, Inc., to glre a release bond, ae required 
by sec. 304*07 of the «isconBin etatutes* Thereupon MillardfQy 
Inc., orally applied to plaintiff for svich a bond, and defendant 
orally agreed to indemnify plaintiff and to later reduce his agree- 
ment to Yioriting and sign it. Millard > Inc., and plaintiff there- 
upon executed and delivered a bond to the sheriff of Milwaukee 
oounty, who accepted the bond and released the attached goods. By 
miatako and inadvertence the "bond given wis in form an attacliment 
bond, inatead of a release of attacliraent bond, but the sheriff and 
hie deputy accepted the bond as a release bond and released the 
goods attached. A simi-lar xalstake vnaa made in the ^written 
application and indemnity agresmsnt, for in the written application, 
of which the iadeionity agreaaent formed a part, the stilt in which 
the bond was to be used wac described as that of Millard's, Inc. ▼• 
Greenspan-Greenberger Company, and as part of his defense defendant 
ineiste upon a literal interpretatioa of this phraseology. 

Xt is urged ¥y plaintiff that the indemnity contract is Id 


lo soixaaang exl* xil &ei©v/I:ri in'.;, otI^p^ <"j«.jrfq±n 

TtoJi g®xc' 

«»:rftsXO «as6H »0 "O 
i&iMw «;f|clsJ[q:c!no art* Hi bt^^Hn frJoat lMitf,iim asU sas)i% 

#acla3« ypi^t^fiHoD '5:o®^»«f«':»iflD-'iS«q[aK«>6TB X*^ M^treid n^scf b^ti Hue 

tffisbfial^i) fen*? ,f)ite{f ^- if '„;;., ,.;.;.: :...,. oJ &9il:,-n; ylX. ■ -■ .;C 

-sa-ZB^ aM »owfj,oiao* . ■-^ 1tJ:litit»lq yllflm^L. .,,.: ,,.__. _:> 

-sisiii 'i'ilJHJtelq barn « . . ; - *6«oXXJSC ..ii xxalc bxm -i^uiil-zvi oi iasa 

lHR-« "f'-IfprfR^M:^ ^rrer t 6JK>tf *£gHir. ^... ;;...., i. ■ *■ ' ' - ■ 

iX0**iT;f ©If* ff* '^'-iT^ rrptr ©afjBd'Cjttt ttsifiiHle . ^rfosWa abooa 

(UrolJfaoiXrrtr fr?:^.^.?" ,. . '.trrjfao'xjp^ ^JiGtaebai bBB noid-isolXq^a 

»v .nal ,3*6n.«XXij,. .. . : iynorf ©Jd* 

«iaie'Coss£^<2 a^* io ii£oi^«*o^qTis*ni Xsas^lX £ noqi; aJaiafii 


"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^ 
"bility strictly to the terms of the undertaking. It is evident 
from the allegations of the complaiBt that the only reasouahle con- 
clusion to oe 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* Ino.» 

and in reaching this conclusion the court should have inquired into 

the intent of the parties and/givaJ effect to such intent according 

to the sense in which the parties evidently tmderstood the contract 

at the time it was made. It was so held in Walker v. Douglas s 70 

111. 445, wherein the court said (p* 448): 

"A familiar elementary principle of constructioa applica'ble 
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 accord inf: to the sense in v/hich 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 Tae done 
therc"by to its Aordsj for greater regard is to "ba had to Ifae clear 
intent of the parties, than to any particular words which they ijiay 
have used in the expression of their intent*' 1 Chitty on Oonts . 
(4 Am. Ed.) 104-5.'' 

This principle of construction was adhered to in the following cases: 

Shreffler et al » v. Hadelhoffer* 133 111. 5o6| Dowiat v. The Peop le ;> 

193 111. 264, where the court said: '♦\?hile the obligations of 

sureties are str iotissimi juris g they are bound "by the ohvioua import 

and intent of their contract. Contracts shoiad 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 sensej, though violence be done thereby to its 

words,' * * -s^;" Torrence v. Shedd, 156 111. 194; Ifemerow v. gstional 

Lead Go. . 206 111, 626. 

vVhatever argument may be employed to point out the mistake in 

-lodd-f-ts X^s.biLBV ail 'to -lovsl xix , f ifcitoffi-aie'iai; -xsxlio oi.':! bsu'iianoo »tf 

iioMv,' 'xoi «oiic»W'x;fBaoo ^oxt^^ta 'io 9lsit &di *Bft'5 bos ,i'i iaalBv.^ oBrfJ 

"■>gi:I Slid- sni^JiaxI o* soaoialat riJiw xX«" asxlqqa obn^iaoo ^nsbnslsb 

*n8biT9 a J: ;tl .i^fiMjstfiabiw aii-t xo aci::a.+ 6r{d- o;i- xlioltis Y^i^J^i^ 

-rxoo 3lrfj8r.'oaB9i xlao S£ii iMi$ inislqiaoo arij 'lo anoicfsssIlJB oiiJ tttoil 

-floo 39x;fieq siicf lo Il£ ;f.sii;t si eio&l sdi asoil «w^.i5 sd oi noieulo 

bXuovv- xioxcfw fi'tSTxg 9cf bli/oile bnotf js iadi b&ba^iai bsm bsialqmsi 

o*nx bailJjpnx svsrf bXi/ode iiuoo af{^' noxa;jIo«oo axrl^ ^uldoiiQi «x bna 

gflibTOoo^. :^n->*rji riowa o^ ;^oon»^iaN^f'n.n eoi^iiaq ©rl;f to ttteial edi 

ia^iUmo ^di bvoiB-xobm ^X^xteMve Betiis^ exf^ rioMv* ni eanoa exi* o* 

j{PI^^ "q:) fci-»« ^'^woo 9^"^^ 0XS7axiv/ ^Q^^ « XH 

ex--/Io'e^^m-oSL *3xJi oa ,.eJt;f:cBq exi* "io nosjn^iat ^di oi ioelie 

.l^rStf aonaloxv d^u.d, .aanea *sxij «x n o* n..iB !j/;;f *!^,^J-^.^ 
•rrlro '^it o;J bBd ctf Oct ax b^BS^^'i ist^B-rs '"^ jabio»= ci*£ od Xo.tisxiJ 

laeaijo QfixwoXXol 9xi* lix o* bQtadbB a^w aoxjoif-riafloo lo sXqioxixiq axxlT 

_j^Mo^l.PAt -v iBxwoa ?aoe .xxi (iex ,:j6T|o4£^bBi .v .iB.j.9_3Lexj.l!^ls 

•io axioi^tBSiXdo 9iii aXixa" iJbiisa .vxj/oo axii 9'xe^v/ ^MS .HI SSX 

oM:oq-m ai^oxvoo exi* ^icf b^K>d a.B v^ri;^ .£XjaiL^itait«-^-l?l ^^^ --"^'^"« 

aB bsx/'.^fafio. oa otf hluode uio.^imZ> .'ioMX^^oo il^di Io *na*xii bOB 

,;^.c ;r..«l3b 0* :^c« :.tiB ^a^liiBq, ed:^ ^o m^i^sitii eai oi io^-ne ovxs o* 

ocf ^.rxx. ;toc.llo' ..xi.a..KCj^ xUnsl^ril^s oi noiJxxa^nx ^.rlcJ o.ex£w bns 

a*x o:^ Y^a-ion.^ onob ^o" sofieXoiY xfu^oifd .a^irxe. dsrlcf xix -H oi n^Tia 

.3sa .XXI aos .♦oo basJ 

xx± e:fB; odi UJO t^uloq. o* boxoXqme «Gf ^.w crxienixrsxB lave;^^. 


the fona of the liond furnished lay plaintiff, the salient fact 
remains tlmt the hond ^/hich it executed as surety accomplished 
the purposes intended "by the parties, and defendant's cants/ayt 
of indemnity contemplated the vary damages cubtained 'by plaintiff* 
'^^ glo'be Indemnity Go * r» Keener » 205 111* App* 405, the iaderanitpr 
sought to iscape from the effect of his inderaaity agreeimmt upon the 
grovind that it msntioned a "penal bond," whereas, under the statute 
in whioh it was used, it ■was referred to as "an undertalang on 
appeal*" Holding that the point was without merit* the court said 
1pp. 408-409)$ 

"'Shen analyacdf appellant's only point is that proof of 

such undertaking^ on appe8,l, claimed lay appellee to be authorized 
"by the STew York practice, ie not proof of plaintiff's execution 
of a penal "bond. * * * 

•*But regardlesE of i.^iether plaintiff's agreement contem- 
plated a technical 'penal "bond,* or an 'undertalcing on appeal,' 
as It is referred to in the quoted final pfirf-graph, or whether hy 
such reference the latter is not properly read as if incorporated 
in the indemnif yin^r hond (C Cyc* 757;, especially ^.b it 
executed the same day and hocame a part of the saxne trsmstfiction, 
Btill the undiEiT^ted facte remain that a ppe llant receiyed t he henef it 
of carrying up the H ayes c as e on appeal throiif-h plaintiff's execution 
of j said undertaking:: on appef.l, * and tlia-t rl aint iffji 5.n ponlH-;"nuen^^^ 
of sach uadert_ak inf;, had to j^ay the judgment appealed f ropu " (italics 

In National Surety Go > t. Hazzarjo, 239 Mass. 341, a "bond was 
executed in Massachusetts indemnifying the surety company from any 
damage it xnight sustain by giving a "bail hond" to "be ueed to Beoure 
the release of a priBoner under arrest in Connecticut* The sTircty 
company gare a "recogniaance" instead of a ''hail hond". The court 
held that under the laws of Masscahusetts there was a substpintial 
difference "between a bail bond and a recognisance, but th-^it under 
the laws of Oonneetiout the termei v/ere used intsrchrjageably, and 
accordinrrly the indeinnitor was liable on its agre<-ment. The court's 
finding was based upon the fact that the bond given aocomplishad the 
purpose intended by the parties. In the instant procoeding that factj 
\7hich is well pleaded in the complaint, is r>.dmitted, and in our opinion 

^0^1 imklBB edit ,nuai^€ X<i &oi[r,tircol J.«oa f^tli iQ rr.o'i <^m 

'Z^ixmiQOCli *nJ «CU» tQ?!^^ ♦X4.~ *jww ii„ .^ 


oilttmsbnt 9it* TcXTiB' 

tj J Jj .■;'.■ ■■- 

. / f)sbi?9Xq XX9W a± rioMw 


oTorshadovm the argtiiaents of defendant's counsel seeking to exempt 
defendant from liability "because Me indemnity agreement called for 
a "bond Ijy a different name, whatever the form of the "bond, and "by 
ndaatever name called* it did in fact acccmplish the purpose of re- 
leasing the attached goods* and that was the intent of the parties 
and the plain purpose of the agreement. 

vfh«a. the United States fidelity and Guaranty Compaxiy was 
joined in a suit in the Circuit court of Milwaukee county hy 
Greenspan-Crreenberger Go.f defendant was d\dLy notified of the pen- 
dency of the proceedings and tendered the defense thereof. Inasmuch 
as that suit involred the liability of plaintiff on a bond on 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 ia hoxmd "by the judgment. One of the findings in 
that suit, as sho"wn "by the complaint, was th&t the bond in question, 
though in form an attachment "bond, v/as intended, given and accepted 
as a release "bond, and that the same should be relormed and held 
to be a satisfactory release bond tinder which plaintirf was held 
to be liable. The bond "was reformed in accordance with the court's 
finding and judgment entered accordingly. In Dreanan v. Bunn^ 124 
111. 175, it was held (p* 188): 

"Ihere 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 boimd to indemnify is in privity with 
the party to be indemnified, and he therefore has a direct interest 
in defeating any suit whereby there may b© a recovery as to the 
subject matter of the indemnity, against the party to be indemnified^'' 

In Fors ter, etc* v. Gregory .^ 107 111* App« 437, citing prennan v. 

Bunn , supra , the court held (p» 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 reaponsible over, imposes upon Mm the duty of defending 
and renders him liable for the reaiilt of the suit.'" 

• ;f«sMtse'zsjS ari* "io saogii/Q nljolq arid' bn« 

■^tf "^Jm/oo D^^JL"5'^Illt to ixxK'O iino'iL' s's nk cfiwo js nJt boniot 

*nscr »jS# Io bntttion ^Xcb asw iaa&nolofc x> . aierfcos'xD-tiaqanssiO 

iCoiaa«!?«I .los'xsxi^ ©tneleb @di b^aobna* fecp asnlbesooTq sri;^ to v.onsb 

di j; . . -- — - , X. . 5 ixcbctslisn t , iseisa !»flj3bn©'i©b 

,nr> r ■ ! -■■-- -. ■" 

J?)'^J.,- -■ < ' - ^^— • ' '; 

bX»u ■ ucjiiuv j.-.j..u}i; ■.Hiiuj ^.d.«■.sX91 -^ifO^OBlai^jBa a ;^.. v« 

a**«wot iJi^v' i^jivr ©ortsb-xooo^ ti. bdstUDl&r y«w fenorf sxJT .©IcfflJ:! ©cf o;t 

r{8CI .,.;; .j.Csri aav.' ^i ,aVX .III 

TS-ssiaixq erii « « ai ^1 isasoX xaXwot^^'xaq 

s%z baf% ,i..i_;.,. ,..„... .., '-'■ ' rws lol v- ' — '^"'■'rX 

*'»b9i'iiEBt=i'?JnX ad" c: ... .,::, «d:^ dn:.:. , ... -J- .- „ ''-'.I 

>v fLumyTT T.Siiilo ^VV.^ »<:sr;: ..rXI TOX jj.XI«^«L^. ♦▼ „l5Ll_,4l?.*§3S? "^ 

oJ DaXial .tl airTT «bn9l(5b oi- fe??.ti7Wi a.s-w btiB ^m 
«kff:} oi U0K.EO tfoUR isi ^til:;^ott' * 'T-t ti^x »Rk.:iot>b . 
3iSiba3l:r)b 'to •<•;•■♦"& ^* t&i^- i^" -qmi. tiavo sicf iojaoiii.."^ Y>i'j-^q 

«*»,ili;-.-; ©iia- to il' . .■ TO'i ®Xcr»lX hM aT:sbfiri boa 


To the same effect are Meyer v. 'Bur cell t 214 111. 62, wherein 
rrex inan v. Bum, supra , was again cited? and 31 Corpus Juris 460j 
sec. 60, where it is stated to he the rule that "where the indemnitor 
is notified of the pendency of an action against the indemnitee in 
reference to the subject matter of the indemnity, and is e:iYen an 
opportunity to defend such action, the Judgment in such action, if 
obtained without fraud and collusion is conclusiTs upon the indemni- 
tor, as to a ll (jue 8 ti on s determined therein which are material to a 
recorery against him in an action for indemnity "brought by the 
indemnitee." We think the finding and judgment of the Circuit 
court of Milwaukee county was conclusiye on defendant, who, although 
he Was not a party to the suit, was in duty bound to defend because 
he -^ms in privity with plaintiff aad had a direct interest in de- 
feating the suit in which plaintiff was joined as a defendant. 

Hximerous points are urged by defendant to sustain the judg^nent 
herein, but the only other one which merits discussion is the conten- 
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 aad the indemnity agree- 
ment are dated June 7, 1928, the written indemnity agreanent was 
without consideration and therefore void. The complaint sufficiently 
alleges that defendant orally agreed to indemnify prior to the issu- 
ance of the bond and "did then proBoise and agree to reduce his agree- 
ment to writing and sign it," and that June 7, 1928, in pursuance of 
that oral promise "did execute and deliver his written agreanent of 
indemnity." We think that a bond executed pursuejat to such a verbal 
promise to later execute a written contract of indemnity is based 
upon a sufficient consideration. It is stated in L. R. A. 1918-B 
(n.) p. 5801 

"If the original contract is induced by the promise of 

jKiy-iefM ,SS ,.:j:X ^rj, ^Lloowl •■«■ jC££©¥ ®^*3 ^oslla »i:,,^ ^tii oT 
vJJdJ^ extii/t etfqT.00 I£ &«i3 efosd-io Ki-cgs aav.' «.sTg;jy« «ngw§ .v ijBcr-aig 

tiB Hftvi:<, ax bar, , -^ Jciaas/ini adi "io Ts-td^nsi ^oo^tfutj ari* cj^ ooaQioxst 

It ,aoi;Jofl ffows k1 ineas^bisl osii tSsos^ios^ tloiss bnoSob o;t "sit/inucfio^CiO 

"xraaabjii M? wogi/ arl&ssXoeisjo ax noiawlloo bxsfi busrs'i iuodilY!' bQaxBido 

s oi S. ^ h'lo i Sim sib rfoiriv; niat a^^ .&e«imT:e;}'9fc ^Bqo.xd;qqxf|.> „IIb ,o:t bb ^loi 

ixudiiti 9£Li lo cfxteciafei/t ^^-^ saxl>ai'i sfl* iniri^ sw **» »e*iimt9baJ: 

9&0*so9d' ijnslsb oi- biaifocf x^^^ fitJt asv-/ <dj:0a otii ci "iiJiBq xj :ton a.BW eri 

-©& iix ^aa-xSiJnl ^o^'iib .« bt--' ^.ari I'ixi^fixslq di £w ^Jivxiq nx esw e»ri 

»*iiB&n9t9o £1 c;« ijoHiw.;, ...... i'ixjnxBlq jfsiriw ax Jii/a afi* -gaiiMB'! 

-a^issDo odi ai; tioxaex/oaib ad'xioia iloixtw sfxo isxido ^c-tfio ad^ iu€ tai&iod 

Bdi xshms 9lcf.ctioi*os ioa ai. osifftOTu I.^to b>%itlZs sxfi d'^ixli fiol;f 

f)s;^0oaxo 3£^ foxiorf arid' 9iiiij3©0Gf J^jjtf^ fer;^",. .„.. .. _ ■■ ^/jjj.oi'i "io ©cfuiB^s 

-esT^a Xi xtmsbtil esii bSB xptataii^ xtoxitBoiXqqi^. ©/f.1 bn^e <82ei «:^ emsZ 

Xli^'^xoi'l'iu^ ^ixxo?Ir;noo erfT .b-coy siolotsMci- bx£« nol*aT9bxanoo *;joxfd'i«7 

-wani: 9x{^ oJ "loxiq y'iiiiEtsbnJ; od- T^osijiu v:XIs*2:o ^jisbxtslsb *ax{* BVgBXls 

-^3X'£;ii axxi 9oui)9'x ort- ©otsis^js ba« sax^iotq xtoff* bib" hm^ bnocf orfd- 'i:n eofi.« 

'to o oruyju ixfci fix (SS^eX tV oxitrt i-.sffd- bus ",d-J: xi^^is baa ^rixjx-; ' lii 

IO *XI0JKRO'£?.VB n8J;Jxi?/ a iff tt9viXeb bxiB siUD^KO bib" aaxnioiq Xis'xo :t.s£[.t 

I^tfisY B iloi/a oJ- cfxtewa-iifq bod-uoaxs bnocf xj ^JbiIcJ ^iri;t stf " . •'cd' Itaas bxcx 

bSBBtf ax Y^xJtffisabxix lo i'o^ti^n&o rxai^rixi// /i eJuosxe lod'jaX o* sairaoxq 

K-QIQI .A tH .il JHx boia*a ax il *aoi.ia'T.abtamo ia^i.oi'i'isja b noqu 

lOaa .q: (.«) 


one of the parties tliat he -will procure the slgnattn-s of the 
person who Butsequently signs in pursuance of such agreement » 
no new consideration is necessary to support the latter' s 

la ^fide lity and Ijeposit Co« ▼. Q< Bryan, 180 Ky, 277, suit was 
instituted against O'Sryan, and others ^ as indemnitors upon a 
sheriff* 8 official bond given by the surety company* It v/as 
urged by way of defense that there was no comsideratioa for the 
bond of indcHinity executen by them because it was executed sub- 
sequently to the time when the surety comps'ny became liable on 
the bond and was therefore unenfoirceable« But the court held 
otherwise end aai d (p. 282 )s 

"There are cases holding» and euch appears to be the 
established rule, that If a bond of indemilty ia executed sub- 
sequent to the time when the indenmitee became liable upon the 
undertaldng for which he wants indemnity* and wihhout a new 
consideration, the indemnitors will not be liable on the bondp 
unless it was executed pursuant to a prior arrangement, because 
there was no coasid oration for its execution. '- " * But, ae we 
haye said, this principle has no application to the facts of 
this case, becaiise the bond of indemnity was e?:ecuted pursuant 
to agreeTPente entered into between the indemnitors ajad the 
indemnitee, at the or before the indemnitee b ecage li able 
on the'under^ gin ^Tor w HIogTt " desirea 'tb~6e T nSeWSTTl'of XT'^ 
( Italics ours.) 

In Lord & Tht^tas v. Hahn, 195 111* App. 356 (abstraoted, 

not published in full), it was held in substance that - 

*^ere deendant's testator voluntarily guaranteed the 
account of e 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 in sudh case it is not of controlling impor- 
tanoe that the contract was executed before a written guar?!jity was 
signed, if executed on the faith of a pronise to guaranty itt 
which pro mi se was later fuifiJled . " "Ut^lTcsoursV) 

*e have reached the conclusion that the complaint suffi- 
ciently stated a cause of action against defendant, and that the 
court shotad have re^.uired an answer aid hearingupon the Issues 
made up by the pleadings. Therefore, the ^ud^nent of the circuit 
court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to 
overrule the motion to dismiss and to require def endaa t to answer 

the complaint. ^^.^^-^j, ^^ RMMDm VJITH mHSCTIOMS. 

Sullivan P. J.» and Scanlanj J., concur* 


ax.Vt' >T ^i> ■■■ o * 

saw ;fl MXiu^qmv y^exm -ydi x^ «»^.ts bstfxi l^iolTitt B»lliT«ria 
m ^l^Bll sm;iy^d ^.u/^qms ^^«x«» arf* tt»ri» o«l# «»il* 0*^I*e©i/p5>8 

sv; .,,'5 <:tt;fr ■'^ * -^- .- .,. :; 

+ _' ■' ■ ■ ■ - , -JO airicf 

- J-Brf;? &i>es0i&0ys al &i!®ii bbw *1 ^illij^ al &»ria±Xdi;q son 

si -^" - •'■■ '• '" • -^ ^- "■ .-. ^ :••■-■. -■•'—- +'v . ...,^;.^.-. ,-.-r.-r.^ 

iJ4-. — --^-^ - ; 

"0 'io J Oil oi 3i ou.ho cii 

Kit;: - .--Ik .'■ o'to'^ocr r.-;» ■ : ,: 

Cra'xye"' ■ __ __ ^ . 


Appellants y 


GUY A RICHARDSaH et al.» doing iDUsiness 



29 0I.A. 60 r 


Plaintiffs brou^t suit to recorer daias,ges for personal 
in;)uries arising out of a oollision "between defendants* street 
car and an automo'bile driyen "by Herman Boldeke in whicli the 
other plaintiffs were passengers. Trial "by jury resulted in 
a verdict and judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs 

As ground for reversal it is urged that the instructions 
were improper and prejudicial under the circtimstances shown by 
the evidence. The facts essential to a consideration of the 
propriety of the instructions disclose that on the evening of 
liT ovemher 35 > 1933* plaintiffs had attended a hunco party at the 
Palmer House, Cliieago, and after leaving there about 12 o'clock 
midnight, proceeded to the Coaao Inn for refreshments. About 
1346 o'clock in the morning they started for their homes en 
Uorth LaSalle street. Herman Boldeke was driving the oar east 
on Grand avenue. Tine lights and brakes of the ear were in good 
condition. Ihen he arrived at a point about forty feet west of 
the intersection of Orleans street he saw a street oar going 
south which came to a stop at the intersection. Plaintiffs 


-^109 .A.I 8s ..«ix.,*v 

cfaotJ a 's^rxsMslab S99w*sd" noialXXoo j:? Io .two -gfjiaiTa a&l^i/tnx 

ai£# doxdw nl siabXoS iiara^oH x<^ fi;9vx'x5 slMomoius mi bfis ^^o 

Ui *«*Ioa8'X xrut \;o' Ijsi'JT . sttssnsaejBcr g-xew a'i'itiaielq 'zedio 

all iiaisH .ad'aal>n-3iafe lo torsi ai ;^it©jas&wt &«•« itoib-xsT b 

* &aXf>eg.qs 
8xioi*ouii8ffi srf* dfjsitf* BsBtir ai *i Xb3*xo79'2 tot brntox^ a.-. 

lo S'OXne-vs ori."t no Jerf;^ ©aoioaib axioi*3.yi.tani: ©xi;' "io T£*9i'xqoo:q 

orid- is X&ns<i oojKiJd" s boibiroiji'v-: bsd st^.; . ^ : . ' t :'.2 rtecfiaevoH 

iloolo'o S.;i ^Jjotf,?} jsnaifer iKxViioX -xsi .. i : . > ,eawoII 'xsmXs^ 

^jsjodji .a^HSBidasrr'iaa lo'i xml offtoO Qdi oi b&bQsoo'iq, ^id:si:abi.m 

UG eeiaoil 'xisxU •xo'i 5oJis*a xsricf -^airnxoia otli ni. 2100X0 'o (l^i S. 

d'ea® leo S'XLt gxilTlxli 84|w a2ls£>X©S rxfjoiTeH •Jaa^jB ©XiBSBj; ii^ioK 

f)COs xijc Slow rrao exfj- 'to ao:!iBT(f bns aixlglS. ©itStI? ♦aunsTs JbnsiEO ao 

lo ieew Jasl y^'^o*! d-t/ocfs ;fKioc[ js j-x; 58v.tTT:^j ad nexfi'/ .xioi^ibxioo 

Bxxios ^so inQxis s wsa ©d ^^ss^cfe axiesItcO lo xioxJosaaa^rxii oxf* 

alli;JiiXBX<3: .mlioea-xBist adi is qoie & o,t siaeo xloM?/ xfrfxroa 

adduced eridence tlat the aiAtomoTaile was then traTelliag at the 
rats of 15 ^0 lb mil&s &a hour* i^aU th&fc Boldfci:e» after tootiag 
the hcxa, started into the iatsrsection. The street c&i- started 
aau continued orer the crossing and Boldeke uasuoosssfolly 
©ndeftvored to swing to the s ciath out af the path @f the car* 
The autoHOtoile collided with the west or right hnnd side of 
ths atreat car juet Ijaek of the motormaa'B platforaa, "but did 
not proos^d lipon or across the Orleans street car track. 
Mathilda Buttaer and iranay JiOldeke were severely injured. 

l>efendMit8' witnesses testitied that the automobile came 
down Grand arenue at a speed of ahout 50 miles an hour. Ctoe of 
the police ofxicerSf who oaiae to the scene of the oollisxaa after 
the accident* testified that the front wheels of the street oar 
truck were off the traok ahout a foot* smd that the rear wheels » 
while remaining on the track » were turnecJ at an angle. 

At the close of the case hoth aides tendered instructions^ 
■but the court* isithout ocnsulting counsel* rejected asrtain in- 
structions axid modified others, and it is argued that the charge 
thus giTsn the jiiry* xinder the sharply coafiiotiiig eyidenee in tho 
ease* resulted in a verdict lor defendants, fhe instruction most 
seriously criticised is lio. 17, which was given in lieu of defend- 
ants* tendered instructions jioa. 5 and 6* and reads as follows t 

•On jJoveatoer 26, 193S, the City Ordinances of the City 
©f Chicago then sJid there in full force pj3<2 effect provided i 

"* Section 78 (h) — When a street oar has started to 
cross an intersection* no operator shall drive upon or across 
the car tracks ?»ithin the intersection in front of the street 
car . < 

"The Statutes of the L^tate of Illinois in full force 
and effect on ijovtaiaber 26, 1935, provided as follows t 

"^Ho person shall drive a motor vehicle, upon afiy public 
highway in this State at a speed greater than is reasonable and 
proper, having regard lo the traffic and the use of the way or 
so as to endanger the life or liab or injure the property of 
any person** 

•The jury have a ri^t to and should consider the facte 
in this case in the light of the ahove laws which were binding 
upon the parties in this case,* 

*• 9i>i:« bsj(^ d'ffe-^'^ ^"■> ^«e'iJ? sad sC***' aafiiXI 

• bstijjtwi v;X&ti©v93 sTdv/ aaisiiXott ^xaia1£ |«tw «»«^i>M ablisLiaM. 
©flUTio &Xi:tfossOvli;«^ orii ^Ati* b&X'tii»^4 6®fla©n.trw »s*iiR&as> 
lo &aO *'Six&si lis selim 06 iVG^» Ic ^aega » ia auae-^a foOM^i) tmob 

•ISO *.o£To ;:o:£l »ri* *jsrl^ b«l'ii*a©d' t;?iT9DJtoo^ syS* 

^aXseriw -jseic ©iiJ d'.arf* la** t#iei»1r « difotfa jfosi^J &iii lie ©istsr afotfTt* 

^aaoliowxisaJt b^'^ba^i aebie If^od* »aj3» arl? lo ssoXo odi ^A 

-xti nl'ii'Tsc '■>s5'of'f.'"r ,X«sf?e'0's -^^^ai^XijaHor ;^i/9floX.. *^tifGo ©xfi 1u^ 

jawoiXol n;B a^)Bsrf li£f/i ,d 5rK ?- .sol aiJOi^oifsSaai ba^cfciis;;^ *oifiB 
^ji-ir^ nr:^ ' onttalb's'.- t .-.SOX ^ag' t»iCte9T0li xrO** 

*®©^iitj tjrf^ io Juo'xl al aoxJfjaa'isifli efts' . . tdf xjso «iii 

08301 Xiitfi Ink mMulXlt 1^ 6'$iiii:i mii lo er0d'&d'isi& •£($<* 

sawoXXo^ BB f>s5ivo^q t££@X «d2 t r- ■ no Joalls bajs 
oiXc'iJtj; ijuja iiocLi/ <ai«>iilav t:o;JOia & oytzb IX*. ■': oK*" 

to Ytt« siU lad ©Si/ &fl;} s»ild- o;f bxagairc ;i.,«Xvad: , i9<ioiEq 

'io x^^®<ao^Q: ^^^ s'luiu^ 4.^1 ...iw:.. 10 ■.•riiX srl;^ saanrbfis o;t s« co 

a^oB'i ©ifi %BbLtim>0 bJX'ona uftB oJ rfrl-^ji-i a ernd YT«fc s^'* 
SixxbHXd ©-isw itoMw awisX syocTb 6ja'rf lo ^xfelX exfd- isi ^ajss aM^f .(tl 

It is sucgued that no instruction upon the ordinance of 

the City of Chicago should hare been given at ail» inasmuch as 

the evidence definitely showed that the ordinance was not violafefld, 

■because Boldeke did not drive the automoMle upon or acrose the 

car tracks vjithln the intex-9?;ction in Trent of the street oax« The 

only thing prohibited "by see. 7S Ih) of the ordiaanoe iaoorpsretsd 

in instruction Ho. 17 is that *ao operator shall drive upon or 

s^roas the car tracks * * *- in front of the street oar»" and it is 

not contended "by any one that Boldeke violated this ordinance, and 

theraf ore tlxcre war; no evidenoe to which the ordinance was applicable* 

The giving of an instruction not based on the evidence was held to 

be reversible error in Thomplsoa v» ilndrews , 243 111* App« 438. In 

that case the court said (p. 442} i 

*¥e are of the opinion that the givintj of the instruction 
si'ROve cuoted was rerere'i'bla error. There wtis nc cvic'erjc® upon 
which to base it. An instruction which tslls the Jury that if r 
certain fact exist? rJrtur-lly tells thsisi thft there is evidence 
frMB which they can find that fact, and if there It no such cvi- 
^enee^ the instruction is calculated to jii&leaa the ^ury, and is 

To the seme effect are Qaryey v. Chioaaro Sail^a ya Co. , 3S9 111. 
£76, pud Clark v. Public Servi ce Co. , 278 111. f-pj. . 426. 

There is, however, a more serious objection to instruction 
1^0. 17. The last paragraph thereof aflvistd the jury that it had 
the right to and should ecneider the facts in the case «in the 
li«ht of the above laws -which -were binding upon the parties In this 
case.^ (italics ours.) This left the jury to draw the only con- 
clusion ^hich a layman could possibly draw, namely, that the mere 
fact of the supposed violation ended the case. It told the Jury 
that It should consider the caee in the light of those laws "which 
were binding," and atist have given the jury the ia^reiSBioa that the 
ordinance and sstatuts were more iaqportaat rules of law than any 
others in the case and governed its outcome. The law is »?ell 
settled that violation of an ordinance or statute is only prima 

witf sa«-sc>^ to ao^if ^licroawJajB audit ©tiib *@fi bib satofeXoa sawsoetf 
TO aQqts ^:rltb LLjsda i9tBt&qo 9M^ i&d^ ax VS. .ol cxotioss'ii'staji n± 

al ♦6g*. -v^jfA •III e^£ ji 8y»ib|c^. .V ifgjsiasioiH Ki xo-xtn sXcTxBieT®^ acf 

»{Si'* i%) ftfAa^'d'xwo "Sif^ seso Jsfl* 

f: Gi:s..;bl;vro St ^t'^iii ? 'srf.J iflsil^ «!lX''-'."i' -■:■..'/ us i ^-7 zi^,i.xfi *cws1: f2.1:B.tT5»o 
iioiia on j1 eix©rld Ut Suae <<t{>«t daiiJf bail «ef53 i^jaxicl', /loiilw asoi'i 

Bid;! ' ' 'Ts^ »M,' c^ I &rticr 9t»w ifs|ifev sw«X eyocfe ©if4 io idyikl 

0' « '■ : £tffifiry:jsX £! rfslxf^-r kqieje/Xo 

jf^itlw" »Wj:-. 'l& t^-^-- .:ab.?:a«eo bJWiCfa *! ^.erii 

-%au» neiic^ w*sX xO a©X«a" JaaJ."xoq0BU: ©^o« otiew ?;3ii;Js#e 6«a ssttsaiftso 
XXau si ta-^X ©xiT .araoa^wG a*i I)9i54:9'v©3 b«» ©aso »xlcf 0i i:"csd;;o 

fauie c^loQxio© of xiegligeuoe. We find in defend&iits' ^rief no 
authority api^revlag an instruction Biaiiiar to il-J. 17. D3ieadai^ta 
seek to justify the instructioa, but "iJ® tMnls it -.^as laisleadiag 
aaa improper. i^efendants' tenderefi iastruotions iJos. 5 aad 6, 
v.Msh th© oour-i reiuseS, iadis'ite tiia- their coun?®i had the oorreot 
ixile of is'B la ffilil4 wheu thoy s,r3ked ths oourt to charge %h.e jury 
that the viol-tioii oi a statute or ordinance is aersly ^-rJEm faci e 
evidence of negligeiice and that the Jury aust find that the violation 
a^aouated to negligence "s-hzch prs:;»ij£ately oontrihuted to th® collision* 
Tendered inotniotions Mot?» 5 and 6 aleo distinguished "betiiyeen. the 
caaes of the driver, Boldeke, and plaintiffs who were paasengeraff 
a distinction which is entirely ignored in inetruotion So. 17. IMder 
the instruction as given ths Jury was told that the laws ware Isind- 
ing (m all the parties, and that if Boldeke violated either the 
ordinance or the statute* ipso facto » none of the plaintiffs could 
recover* This is not the law* The queBtion oi th& care and caution 
i'ifipossd upon the passengers in the ear was not t.*jkea into eonaider- 
atioiiij aotxithicitandins evideiice adduced "by plaintiffs that Valentine 
Kualler» who vas riding in the frout seat* saw the street oar as the 
automoMle nt^ared the intersection, and said to Boldeke ''there is 
a str©3t car coming," to which itoldeke replied "I know it." 

I^fendaats argue that this instruction was cured hy other 
instructions, and specifically that inBtruction Ho. 7 atat&d the 
correct rule. Instruction £0t 7 was proper so far ae ths driver 
Wat conotrned, "buii did not take into accotint the rights or liabilitiea 
of the ether paaeengere. as to the driver the Jury could not very 
well follow both iastruotions ifos. 7 and 17 > hecause they were con- 

In Oorrell v. Paysonj 170 111. 213, plaintiff sought to 

escape an erroneous Instruction cm the ground that a correct 

^jimit ^-^ a^^Mo ei t'w^o i^ali &a2*e.3 yiijiii n»siw ttt^/a ax wjsl "io yXira 

elogl .flfflTi^ •V:X»'i»ffl Ki ©oocniibtc :.-o o*ifj£*a jt i^ miiiiiJ.9xv ©x£i ditft^f 

uoltal&lr «if^ i?fMfJ fejellt *aim xtu^ f»di ii.axfi bas son«>jjJt;Xaa« i0 •a«i>6Ive 

nBTCo^jaesiSBq straw od?/- ellitfcial^j fana «»^a6j;o« tsoviib ©it# to eea^o 

"btil^ aifii/ u./fiX 3xfd :isidi b£oi ear^ X'^^l ^^^ il^ri^ sa ngi^otri-^anx an;'- 

all;: la/Iixa bao^iXeiy sileSXoC- 1:1 ;tflii;r btua ta»jt;tiB^ ed# XI,b rro grii 

fcli;0'j .'.i^liaiBlc. ,; ..^ :;■ act . o •,©;fi;i'33& &A3i to 9ori««il)ao 

aoii;.; .• .. ^ 3'X£o exi;t- 'lo iwii*a»tfp oifx #wbX «x1# ^ojCj ai aid? ♦levooaa 

»7.9&^«no!!> o;tii.c iifo3t»^ 4011 Uisv xao ti&i ax cTsisixe&aisq, »siA am^u bi^zoqmi. 

©rf* aa ijso i^setio'a stii vifaa ti'asa ^jxoTi 3iiiJ>jt!£ »«&• oiiT; tt&llvtsiS. 

ax. irx.Qdt'> 93{e»bXoe o* I»i4ai4" biiB tttoxi-ssBlfetai W£4 bSTjBWi aXicfofftOvlwe 

"'. sj. ecu;. -:' fooiXq©*! 82lsl)X0£; tiaiifw o;? •«s'lixaKo X£«o Jpsir^a jb 

0il* bo*fi#B V .oil aol^oirrjaal *jfui;r tlX^-^oi^icatja bttB ^euoii'oiruaiii: 

rs:»v.f.T !'- ;-rf;f a.-, -x^?"! or idqtuctj asv^ T .eS aold'oxrtcartl .3X*ri j'o©i"'xoo 

«»i*iXicf,K . . '.t *m«)!;j&.!R oSiti o:Ir^ ootj" #!!»*«</ , &9fnJi>0itcro sjbw 

-.TOO srtsw TiSii;^ oetmooo' ,fX hna V .aoio. cJnoJt^oiTld-iSili ifS'etf troXXo'i iXaa,- 

0* iA^uoQ Ictiial&lq, «exs .XXt OVl tnosxa ^^ 'V XXaytot) nli 


instruotioB Jr-"*? "been ,dven at the request of the defenciant on 

the BQsm cra'bc'ciQt-- The c-'V.rt th-^rR spirl (p. 21«^s 

«'?'■? {',0 net tMnic it con "be saia thet tiie defects 
in said third instruction were Gured "by instructions giver* at 
the recmest of the defendant. In such a oase it ^as. not suffi- 
cient, as -^m have heretofore aaid in other cases, 'that stsao of 
the dRfen<^ant??' in^truotlms a«?-y hare stated the 1&^ correctly* 
^' ■ '^'^ rlrii.uti.ii '& inrj tiuoti jn^s t-houiy iauve dona the sajati thing, 
BO that the ,1ury oould not have hften misled "bj consifiering one 
set or the other of the charges given.'" 

In Couaselmaa v. Gollins> 35 111. i-pp. 68, Uxi. court said 

(p. 70i i 

"That for the appoiiants ;;he court gave a counter-instruc- 
tion is not an answer to the error, as it cannot he told vrhich the 

jury regarded, if either.*' 

la cases Tshere the evidenoe is conflicting as to ne^igenee 
sad canti'i&ufeory negligence, the courts h«*ve repeatedly held tliat 
the instructions should he plaxn anct free from douht and »hould 

aosounoe legal prlrtolples so that there ooiAld ho no question in the 
mincls of the juxore as to the law. (l lerrln:^ v. . & A* B* Co*> 299 
111. .'314 J Tail iaaw v. jPemtsjdLvenia 5» Go . , 235 111* App. 49, r>6«) 
I'txifl, in caseft whsre the evidence is oloee if there are cnyerrorf? 
that mi,:3ht imve heen pre^'u(?icial the judgment must ta rcrersed :md 
the causo renfindod. ( M i l l cker v. Pretherst., 2C9 111, 11, 16 j j.^vander 
V. CMcKgo city P.. Co. , 29 6 111. 384, 286. J The court in this case 
covld Iiare obviated the necesElty for a retrial of the case hy giving 
the instructions tendered lay hoth sidee, wMch ■were based upon approved 
authorities. Dome of the cHticiexi acade of oxher instruct ions given 
it- 'cell taken, and the eotu*t iaiproptirly refused to glre plaintiffs' 
infit.ru0tion Ho. 2, ..hich defined the hurden a&kit upon the various 
plaintiffs aa to the fcxerciee of due eare and caution. HOTft'sver, we 
appreh«!/^d that these crrcre will n^ot he repeated upon retrial of the 
cage and deem it unnecc^&siaxy to dlecuee theae various instructions in 
detail. jjefbadants' ootmsel argue that no other verdict could have 
resulted from the evidence, hut we have exaained the record aiifficiently 

'ttt f--'-'-'"^ :' .^t{:> » , Ef9«„ ., „. . .... &J:aa &•. . .,.....,. ...:■■; i;-: 

,5jii_,-. .:; Qsii miob miM fcli/oxl-.; ■ ■ - .-- :i.;. a^'l-ilv, .., 

»m ^^i'lSfeleaPD Tjtf fcoli'siiw nsscf 9V^»tI .ton rIuos "tj^uf. »di iBsii ©a 

3'. ,tor.rt« fid^ 0* rrswaita na ioa. ei aoti 

bluodH 6«xja *8Miftfo jse'ii aNWi »««■■ ajgeXq s«f S>Xsfta«i« attoxi«jrx«a«A s«ttf 

ant to lalii&'JL JX&iiH j&sj3«»£i»-2: ad J-o« IliA axoaxa aaorii isdi oiwdst»|«A 

to feel satisfied that the eyidenoe w®.£ sharply coiif lie ting on 
eeyeral important issues » and that it was thereiore of paa'aaount 
importanee that the jury should have "been instructed oiearly vxi€. 
fiilly as to the law* The judgment oi the Superior court is 
3feveiBea ti^d tLs cause is lenandeg lor a new x,ri!il» 

'Ulli^'aii* i-*. J.» aiJd 3oaiilan, J., concur* 

i.iJOCiOO ,. . t.^;;Ijilfifi)n n' . . „ i_.ivi'iXwK 


(plaintiff and defendants below), 

Appellees » 




a corporation, (defendant and ) C\ f\ r\ -^' r^ -i. ^? 

plain?i« *el,wi. 2 9 i . A. 6 1 

Appellant. ) • *• "*>^ \# A 


This appeal involves a collission "between a Chevrolet 
automobile o^smed lay Ivan B. Goode and 4riven hy Bernard Lener, 
and the trailer attached to a truck ov«-ned hy Holland Motor 
Express Incorporated. Goode brought suit for damages to hie 
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 Cfoode against Holland Motor Express Incorporated 
for ^315, and the other finding Goode and Lener not gtxllty in 
the suit lir ought againot them by the express company. Judgment 
was entered on both verdiets. The express campe.ny appeals. 

The first count of plaintiff's statement of claim alleged 
negligence; the second coiint vdllful and ^.vanton conduct. The 
Beoond count was Btricken in the course of the trial and the 
court's ruling is assigned as ground for rovorsal* No question 
la raised as to the pleadings. 

Th« accident occurred August 17, 1935. Goode 'e Chevrolet 
automobile was being driven by Bernard Loner in a southerly direc- 
ticm on a two-lane concrete highway, arotind a rather sharp curve 



ms 'tin ciiBiq^) 

Asc^B-sogiooiiI BsoxqxS lo^oM 6x«3lX»H tfa/iixsajj afeootj to lovsj ai ano 

JnsiSEfwt .T£ffjsqaK)o ®39Tqxrj sxC^t x^ tK&rf* ^ajHii-53« tn^woirf ^lua adi 
*sS.ii^qtii3 xf^'i^l^^^ SB(i'tqx.o srf? .a^oibisv fr;tocr no baits^ritQ asw 

sjrfT .tof/bmn no^tttrs'^ b«jB XwlXXiw imxoo ftflooea sxld- |t)on©3lXs«n 
aii# bos) XjBi's.!}' Qtii lo aarrwoo 3rf;J «]: rsejioii^a saw d'xtuOvO ^iiooea 

♦ agni^aeXq ©if;^ oi &b bsiaijen ejt 
#©XoiT9riO a*9boo{) ♦SSt?! «VX ;tax/soA bsiTTUoeo ittebloosi oxfT 
-oeriii) -^XiaxWiJOa r, xii loneil bxe«^f>€ x*^ nevlib saisrf eew oXIdoiaDctiJK 
eviwo qiMa "xstHai a b«3J0X^ ,ij*»''j'feirf stfa^onoo- soAl-ovti a ao noli 

on U* 3* route 31> ae&r the IntexBCctloa of Biverulde roadf 
Berrien coimtyt MleMgan. fwjo other Tjoya and two girls wer« 

also p&sa^ngers in the oar. They were going to Benton Karhor 

to attend a movinj^ plottire 8how« The aecidcmt occurred betwoea 
at30 and 9 too 9*a* Plaintiff <s v^itnesBOs testified that tho 
Ch@Yrolet wfts heiag driven bet^^een 30 and 59 znilee an hour» and 
aa they approached the eurre the driver slowed dovm to approximately 
25 allee an hour* The tmole waj» then at the othnr end of the ourre* 

hen the driver of the Chevrolet ear ims about 25 fe«st from the 
truck he noticed the truck T«as "* cutting" the curvet and whs apj^roach- 
ing tm th«> vtrong aide Of the rmtA^ I>ener pulled his ear into the 
gravel on the right hand side of the highway and his oar irae struck 
by the trailer and turned over on ita side, fhe evidence discloses 
that the truck traveled about fifty feet before ooaia^ to a stop. 

Defendant had a different vereien Of the occurrence* Xta 
iritneeeee testified that the truck and trailer had pulled off on 
the right hand shoulder ao that the entire left elde of both units 
were 4 feet to the ri^t of the center mi its own right hand side 
of the hi^way* The truok and trailer were about 35 feet loag and 
the lighte were lit at the tiue of the aocident. The eollieloa 
caused the two rear tires on the left rear wheels of the trailer 
to be blovm out* the rias of the wheels were twieted and brojcen 
and the tail-gate of the trailer was torn do^m. 

One of the Iseuoo of fact thus siahiaitted to the Jury ^nae 
ij^hether it ^ais Goode*c$ autonoblle or the truck which was on the 
wrong side of the road. Defendant's witneesses teetified that the 
acoldent happened before the truck reached the curve} that the truck 
waa going only 15 vHes an hour aaad had pulled off the pavement 
"tlhistn It appeared to the driver Of the truck that plaintiff's oar 
was over on the wrong side. 'S&1& evid@neet ho'tsrever* 1@ contradicted 

«n»vt «Xixi« m^ri bets ^x^H %miii9 o.wT .ns^MoiM «x^xwo£> n»ltx9^ 

fl»«!r«f»<f l^»%'t£ro&fi ;raa&ld«£^ nd^ »veid& atvuifii^iti ^isIvicm js fyfs»:SS& ot 

siii ji«>il jfaot flii ^&o«r« ami ice 4^sXorr9£iO »jf* 1« tmrlih srW' warf * 

f»«i* ^^fit x&a 53 M *s»XI»^ x»ja»j; ,5*0?. arf* 'i« e&is •?3ii»iw ^t ao »ai 
io»-i^~. :.^»' tj«e sM l>tt«» >£,swi:i^M i»££if to ^s^hla baM i^tx &sit ts» ioT^n^ 

bcus ^iseX ^&«1 ?.t;: ^j/od'.s ox*w i»Xif)'z^ btv& ^9axi atCT •'^;«n«feM »rfj^ to 

.1.,..: ;o ■Xaftiiv. .,..„.■., .»X ©«f^ flscs» saiii «j; >/..«r o^ •» -^jrii bsaifjae 

«!(;} i&ii fy'&ViUatti »ea«ttiij^lw «!i;^t:>i!il»{>i#ltiiC •I>£i0i; aiii to &f}l« igx^'xv/ 

itu^m»raq, c^ lie b«>iXfiis biuf 6«h -nmii oa .i^ila <!X ^^Xcu inb1«^ ««v 

lid^ol&A'Zitsoo Eii: t'tavfiwod «»M[s&lir« aMI «»&1« gM^w «i(# ia» lev* ajRsr 


by Honnan Dorgelo, one of defendant's omx witnesaes, who testified 

on cross-examination as follows s "^. How far around the curre 

did the accident happen? A. traotically to the very north of tie 

turn." Ooode's car was proceeding in a Boutherly direction, and 

if the accident happens cl at the north end of the curve, as I»orgelo 

testified, the truck must have traversed the curve "before reaching 

the site of the accident* Another circtB]istaa<3e tending to show 

that the truck had entered upon the curve appears from the following 

quections propounded to Dorgelo on direct S!camination< 

"(i« How fast were you driving along there, as you came 
around the ctirve ? 

A* Approximately fifteen miles per hour* 

cj,. As you came up to the curve, did you observe any other 

A.* Yes, this Chevrolet coming* 

Q,» How far away was the Chevrolet v/hen you first saw 
it, from your car? 

A* 150 feet* 

(^« Bid this car slow down at any time before the oollisiOB? 

A* Yes, it i&ay have sloviied down to a certain extent*** 
(Italics ours*) 

Dorgelo* s testimony Is corrol>orated 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 turn* 

The questionsof negligence and contributory negligence pre- 
sented conflicting iseues of fact, \diich 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- 
dence, but an examination of the record does not bear out this con- 
tention, and we would not be justified in disturbing the verdicts 
unless reversible error was otherwise committed upon the trial* 

It is tirged by the express company that the court erred in 

-..,fiMD;^»^' .¥fdiVtf ^iF'tjj -'-^ '■ , ■ -^TB^^ evfi£i J^J«a :f€)4r*t* sx^,t ^^sil-^rfse* 

SiXmt- B^XJ'^ ^QtBdi HKflXr -;---'•■■•■ "—■■ — -■• ^:^-'- ^;''oV »p" 

»'uwd IS? e»Xiffl( n&s^lEJl xla;iBsshwtqtiA .A 
-sas^^^o -wsfs ©TTt^acfn m- . -. n«o sifi Oj" qp Qss&iO wet aA .^^ .^„ ■ 

,, j :-al Q^l .A 
i'ffl©ia.tEXoa M* ©10 led siaJ:* x^*' 3b awoo *foxs ^ao sldi b^ *P 

«,*fle*Xf- al.H4tai) •; ■ •:-■ '--or- ~T-^ ""-^ ^i .'^sT .A 

(.o^cwo soils* I| 

XlQsievbs BaoU&0Up sserfcT b©fiJ:fli'xs*9& X^^l «** aioib'r: -*i Xcf bOB 

j'«M# a.«ff ^fi^f>K6l9& Yd- ebjaia aJniof ^nO .Yn«qE*oo t'-as-iqxe Qdi oi 

10 Crisis*-' *s&'ix££sffi 9di iBOlai&a me. Y.risl &sii to -aiiv^lbfr Bsi$ 

-jooo eM? rfwo 1S9CI" .-tou a©ob Bioosi arfif I0 aciijzatemx^ as iti<f ,soaob 

,£&lti sjci* iiocji; ba#*ii8Bioo ©aiwxaxi#o a,. oXofiBisT*'! aaoXxuf 


refusing to admit in evidence two photographs purporting to 
represent the Ecerxe of the accident. The driver of defendant's 
truck, who hud traveled over this road frequently, identified 
the photographE, hut neither the photographer nor anyone 
wais prenent at the time *;hey were taken identified them» nor is 
there ejiy preliminary proof shOTdng the condition of the rpad at 
the time the photographs were made, Furthermore, the photographs 
were taken hy daylight, and the accident occurred at night, and 
Goode's couneel argues that much of the terrain as shown in the 
pictures Was invisihle in the dark and thfit the conditions vmve not 
the same as at the time of the accident. Goode also offered photo- 
graphs of the site of the accident, and the court suot-csted that if 
counsel wotild stiptilate he would admit the pictures offered hy hoUh 
sides, but counsel for the express oomparty refused to so stipulate 
and the court thereupon sustained the objection of Ctoode'e counsel 
to the photographs offered by the express company. Inasmuch as the 
necessary preliminary proof for the admission of the photographs 
was not made, and seme question existed as to whether they correctly 
represented the situation as it existed at the time of th3 acoid<jnt» 
we think it was not error for the court to refuse to .admit them. 
(C.C»C» & St« L» Ry_> Cp^ V. Monaghanjt^ 140 111. 474? Henke v. geere & 
Mansur Qo ,_t 175 111. App. 240.) 

It is further urged that the court erred in refusing to sub- 
mit the willful and wanton count of the complaJlnt to the jury, but 
we find no ccaapetent evidence of willful and wanton conduct, and 
therefore we think this count %as properly withdrawn. 

The principal ground urged for reversal, and in fact the 
only one stressed upon oral argument, is that "there was no competent 
evidence as to the market value of the damaged automobile or the 
reasonable cobt to repair it.** It wais iloode's contention that his 
car was damaged beyond repair and that he had to sell it as Junk. 

.H«i'!-?.t«3fei ,'^cX*ci««>i»'sl fe«o« aM# xsyc bsi^vijisd- b-oif oifar ^aloirt* 

:„ Bssxixsm ton t^dxis-r^ciosiq t^Ui xail*i9ii iStuii ,5fcr{^^3;g©ioftc &iii 

ai ion im&iiS b^^ltli&»t>i.. ttp:^:^ Mew ;«C9iI?' 9HtJ:;f ?irt:f ;fjB #«$.q.«>x<ji; asw 

ail* fii a*o4e3 ea ttjtc^tsl 9|t^ So rfjjMat .*«if* asaai^li Xaaauoo a'tt|)ooO 
^ofx 913W asmliiJbmo oxii tMi bft& atxfl^ 9sii ni aXrfJiaiYni iir.w esrtw^olq 
-oitoxiq bsxelllto oeXs afeooO .dasbioea ®jcfc? lo smli si1[: : .. . jioaa sri* 

sd'fili/qjtd-s oa oi b^muls'i xajaqjm* ^munqpio »4v 'xol Iwanwoo c^/.^cf «a©&ia 
I-aaxajroo a*«&ooD 'io aoij'oot<^o ari* b^fiJLsj^si/a jKxjjaoisifd^'ujoo 9xl;t htm 
oiii QB dovimji£il tXORqmo uQ'diqxo 9dii xtS bsisllo exfqjstgoi^oxfQ exi. 

yX^ostxc ;arf;}c>xiw ocf cts hajajtxs noxj-!5®wp oaisti bins ,ftbJBHi ;fon euaw 

.ffl^jtfd' ,tiKtf>B! 0* ozts'i&i OS -Jtijoo eri &ok asm ii afniritf sw 

.i..®522£ •"'■ ?.%sH j|kf^ .XXX Oi'l jiJind^mM. .v ^aOj?.'?^^^ jlI^ A.».>?.*J?i5) 

(*Gh& ^nrq"^ .iXI 3TX t,» oD xifaaaM 

*aodr»qflK>o Of; rss/ o'ia/Eidt* ^afid' aX « *«t«»ia!J3axB Xjt:x<» aoqw ^aeeexda »«C: xXiio 

fi££;t 'to oil d'o&io^vjs J»«g£i&aB d£{.l lo sulav TssiiodSi Bi£{f od S£ d:0£i:»&JtV8 

Bill ^J3£tt noJt^jx9*i«o B >@&oe& aam tZ *^mil xt^&i oi ieoo &l<i&aoBtL&-x 

.affjitffe «£ |f^ X£«NB. o^.bsai sii *j3*ltf JSMic xi:«qa^ biid-^stf b©8J3iB»i) axm nac 

He t-^stifier^ t>Vit "tli- -^v^Iiol^^ tlung v?a,a lik-^ ii. t-viatovl iii-ay of 
jualx." "(^r '.feat (Msiiou:', ti'Tu -'id you. jaake ox tha cajr? ii. I 
atteraptod to get, it repaii'or^j they waHtod, laaVbe, ^."00 to fix 
.t>." Sood=> mi" b3.ko a.3ked t?31', t lie did wi';!! wlie cai' aftt^i* tke 
as'-iidt^^nb J an-.' he atv.t'^?. tii t he; af)ld i ^, -so a J-oafc ajsa Tor £'60© 
Th-^ evidanoa show* that th-' front pa^'t of the Gh^ivxolct wa^f^ tm.stsd» 
th© aotoy was "bentf the Itwaps ..'or^j off » fcho cylin(3er-!ae2,d waa 
aas-Rhed, all the \?he'3lB '-^stb Tirfiicr^n off » th'i 130 'y of the car -'as 
out of shape I the frjiiae 'rx^nt, the front iastrxcneuta j hesdlights* 
b'oEix^er and radiator M-er^ dnrnaged. T^vo used cur dealers teatified 
on Ijchalf of ffo'>dG that th? reasoiaable valut; oi' a 123c; Chevrolet » 
in good concitior-» ^vas "between ^75 And ^395 • The jury evidHtitly 
accepted the lower figure tmd deducted therefrom the (|i6C for whieh 
the dsiacged ear '^it.s sold, returning their verdict for plaintiff in 
th© sum of |.315« Qoodfe's evidc-nce that it woiild lu3,vfc co»t #350 to 
repair the cary t&Jfen together »dth the evidence as to the condition 
cf the car after ths acoidant* would eeeia to indicate that it was 
almost cciupletcly desti'oyed , and it \Yas only s. •'tv.lcted mnes 
of juiik" after the accident. The correct measure of daaages mi£? tti© 
difference in the value of the oar "before and after the pccident? 
and sufficient evidence ms suhmitted tc the Jury on this auention 
to sustsin the verdict*. 

lastly? it is urged that the court erred in giving plain- 
tiff's instruction JTo. 22, relating to the measure of dasEiges* Thie 
Instruction advised the jury that it iBi5;:ht tske into consideration the 
evidence* if eny, as to the difference "between the fair each laarket 
valuR of the automobile before the collision end the fair caeh 
market value after it was damaged. The express company's counsel 
does not question the rule laid down as to the measure of dtaaaagejt, 
"but argue that there was no evidence upon Tshich to "base the in- 

„'3b , Tf^V iSGia 3£m>i. i; Kio»a M Jsai* l»*i«*B erf fcmj ,*iwfei:ot* 

&»5«r bi5<$tL-%s>b(iilx^ s.^ffd <'5^« ♦lew «qi56sX ®f{* ,*xififlr sibs? to^ok ©4* 
v.£f!i 'u-.o yrfer iC \;&«-rf erfl* itlio ti»TlffJx «xmw aXs^eiiif ®ri# XIjb ibstitij^m 
.!e4«igii:b,s*rf , R^iiDastra^ejsx ^JiflB's^ aiS? timid Bsmtt erf,^ ,»qjE£{E! ^« fjttf 

ii&larvoiiD C&Ql a 'io ;ji.J.ov ®Irtem>P3«»y: ^>riS 3jr^^ ©£[«-oC to "iXjijfvj^^ fie 

•»CXJji«5Jt-v» "^^lili 3riT »StS^ bits gV£4 «»'9'^''^®tf a>«»' ^jnfe?.*l.biioi5 boo^^ itl 

ilolilw rrol CtSfl arf* fflo^la-rstfij' bs^OMb^d bati ^tifi^ll xav?oI ;ijtii nojqisjoofi 

otf 0Sf5# i«Od «Virf bXaow ii iMi ©i&aa&lvs a»«>&o<»0 •31^4 to itare ad* 

a3«fii ^3j3ii/** a T.Xao s'- -': ^ 1 5«rcc*£*«9b Y-^^^^J^^X^'o© tfaoala 

mliinttau fcidit CO -^xot s-f^* o I feed * iairiire. e^/.' 8©Hffifei;T& icQi^Jfttwa feftis 
aJSiT *ao3r«.sfc ^o ©•majssfar erf* oi sniJ^Xm ,.'::s .ol no±iom&tia± a ♦111* 

ilfjAo •iJisl sil* &«s n&t€tllfiQ mis oTO't?cf aXirfouto^M/is &dt 'to awXav 

Xsem/oo n ♦'v^nnqaio o C!a9"u3[3c» ©/fT .b«9,ftai;?,5 sjsw iJl tedftw euJLsr isittssa 

fBs^^Bmib to 9'iSiBn9m 4di €>i ex mmh hlsZ bXuh 9tii ool^QdJjp tbk »tiob 


struction. W« have already t^et fortli c.t Bufficient length the 
evidence which v.-o Uii..k Ju£lificc' thi^ ccurt in felvijag t;ht) in- 
struction, and thcifciore lux-tLer cJiuouseict. of thiP poipt Is 
unne oes^ary. 

xhe c&ae va.b f.-iiiily tried* fine", thf; conflict in t}ie evi- 
dence upon the vwo priiiaiija.! i^iuea, nnaely , aeglig<?nc« ar/ clrsanges, 
were Bubmitted tc thy Jui^y uadax' proper inrti-aotionn. Tae Jury l\y 
"both j£ it3 Tsroicts found t";iw iSi^UQa against tho cxpreeir, nomrptmjt 
and v;e find no convincing reason for reversal. Thersfor^ &e 
judgment of tae municipal eoart is aff iriaacl • 

Cullivan, P. J«, and ooanlan, J., concur* 


,v,v, .v.. ^.«f»esJiJsQn .,.Y.j:^m?ixi ca^iic*-;! i4*tii»«i:tBi om siij nocxw ©oHfib 

t7:fii3c;sT?n^ . n-^'~qp^' 


o t.l> «xiftJL«KJO.i.. biJB «»'^ ♦i «n-3TiXIUv; 


.,p,ii«. ) 29 I.A. 60r 

CXiktilMiI Fi[A»«ii«i» pl^aUfif wa« st^nask a»^' iJ34}sm^ %!3r 

trial ^^ «» vwi"41ot »M ^wA&umtt nM^k mi# »fim]f@«d am^ :i^Miaiaa«i 
4HI tt|»pttiil 1NM»«II«» «f the i»«p3r«p«r aoi ^rfj^l^lal r««te&!%« 9£ t)»» 

Hw ^pMitiftii «f li»MIii:r* ^"^ 3aau«. ao« $«>«»» m^ an hhr ajt^aftj. 
frott Q j^uff^smni in fsmof «r 4«^&i»gMiAt ttat^sr®^ immW'iAt to iim 

iKPliBft f A<il« ««••• islMwittir 11.) tint st% ftiHi l«mitii«««lr prim t9 

isfti «^)s%i«n f#r !»$? O'osa soft^tjri stai (a) t^bai tUss mtv&r «C deti'wt^* 

tiff t «> «r«d««« maxm r*tti41ng i» St* LoaiA» isit^^gKl^d tlw 'vorl]fi*s» 
3f«4» in CJal««^@« ^I'UFiag' iJie tsttM«s»T of ifSS* la ^ early *Uti»artt««i 
«f ltd.? »t <«M1« w»Xi!lai« iwrlH «» -^lattef^p av«iM«» iM»r««» :Jjp«3iinil« 


%j » 


\0 rffAXi^xs. -VfKs wiJ»s*.r'" 

itiit »t $m«mnm m9^m» m»iiit»'ht^ 1» «f«t Ml $tmm^*f% • M»^ 
«#i)e»t«& INI i«4»irit'^^ct »a$ tM^ M ^iem i:%iu%am mm tmi 's.*i mtmm ttm 

tm ^^ &m^hem&% &^Tss»t »i Warn wtjm^t intf^t&^et.tmn* Tlus 4fmT «f 

fftain^ mm>%* «▼«» ^th els' « 3JLt;iX« ««ffit «f %li«} ' la.yiu'fip s^rfseem 
Gilding Iia«« 

iii^e>t»»Q« •<' r»e«Nl« iw iik« f«31cni»t 

«^~'t%ft!t X mam mtt of tli^ .-frng «t«r«» 1 mn% maatth* 1 mlk«4i 
i# t^ 04ko ffit Hue <ste»1i on mStmivIU^ in trmkt «f tlw drttf/ i»t«roi 

r»m,^G4 %tm mtt%» X glmm«4 1» the ri^^it ao*; Ui«m ^^^ l«ft« ^bea I 

«iAi Wu» SMKt i« tiM euili »ai3^ f acinic e&^^t* It «Mift fsi]ps(3ra%iJBA%«l3r 
A 0«ni|4« of f««t nMwt of MM« -.^bon t <mw Uio 7«ilfl« ':^a1:t iti|^.ib!!Mg: 

Mb«r«» 1 »l^rtn4 Roxooe t>b» @t«e«»t* '-luaii I insus aboai el.^t fix t agd 
tmi% ixi iSm ^tw&^t as»^ tmjj^mid ^s3m tuA» X oow m ear aaatai^^ f r<«i agf 
I«f t« X ido iotot' Imo'tait %teiisi it «MKii fjres&t %iu% it ®*m^ ^.^^m ^m fi$3Fii«%« 

ligr tit» aright fTi!nit f oftdicr# l v^m kxtodk^d #o«»«** 

«i4 tlis> UaMi il3A4 it &^:jm ia o«Bit«<ot ^tb »e o»» yOBvilAsr l^s^^ «r 

fflttr isooodifist m!t9l»«' two« X aoaJL^'t «9^$ anylHi oao* Z @@^ v-^m<^-^& 
I luM»i%a.t«4 ft Idi* "Ilia I tir^t mm ma cmx 1% mm thm l^mt^fth fo£ 

tJst^ m^ 9t awr# f ron wm* tlto oatr w»s goin^ mi^-i^t* imn thi. oar 
struok SHI I o^fi) .la &l&mit th« o«ot«r of ^e t^&xtt^t*** 

sijaiaUj'f t»»iuri«»di tlmi «a Uu^ tmimx iri«a ^ tld» o«»b« 

«a^ mw wtflMwroAf *7«i* oir"! tJ&i%% tdio is-^^ji iSum m»k^» "'^^aa^t did ;ro«i 
««e ia»m i^oit ^L};^ao<s<? to yotir IcKCtt** oivl «dM( ono^^wroA* *A Y«ilO!\« <^flk1i 

pifleoii ia i'Tmk% of tlSte iiniif? ii£t«r«« Z W(y» |W>i«li««d3,y In iUm wi<l^» 

Of ^» utTsn^i iten 1 fin»t «flii 1^ o«ir«* 

Tho ^ndly otl^if @o-cterr«!ae« idLlmios wm Smm^ B* Pmt%m»mi$ 
nHaamtiimp ckT the 'ft^lltm o&b |»rk«^ »t <^i«^ oierli* Ss t«»«tlfi#^ itm 

*Mm» S'^idkottoo o^ijoo oat of tliQ «^ti%aioe get d^oixvUl® raid. 
«elSe«iS ri^t aosrHi* '-'^ lisi^ 648 ico n^rtJuKMi « litiX^ to ^t emt 
%o tStm iat«iroeoU«a» Intt X -vi^taiDa^* t^ »s^ ^Im "^mt ^essw^^lllmi tmnhf 

o«ftt« 'tim 4mtt 91: %h^ inm @lMir<3 ia ri^sft Ofp9«^i%« ths^ buixdlair 
Xta^* t%i@ Tallow <|.@|» «haf Z ^iia ia WiM aort& «dr tlie dn^ slMa»B 
«M »s9us CM^iag ocusti moA it w^.@ rii^$ ste^sf to tim '.--«iath ot]x1» on 

nmmtM. ^t!rsMMi.i ''«• tmim mt^ilX * xa Ml» a»W9 «#«m» ^jtijMft 

* ■«)«.» 

.is>«aal^ lif\ £iBf(v ewe 

1© iU' :' 

m^ SM>» ''4*; 

fiusi ;i«iiJ(..-:^' jsiij 

l»» «^T).: 


^' i »cttr g^AMatk ^' 

« U%tl% to iM mmt, i-^sm ^'mt mOSmii xl^% aloa^* .-h» -m» nKOklAfi 

^SB M%Tmt0 fim first %Mm' S »«tio#<l -^^i* tHr.* x Ji^w** t^ 
m» Imymi sgr -srife 1& %1»mt mem fe<.;t, ^slatoh '#ma^ im}m it aiMPu* 

l©^Bt5« mtt -at Mli}« ii«aio*ti!n imtf l mm tlte* ri^c^it l^^t fearer* or 

ii^w t-*fe» e«.r ^s® thu »!<!# «*• aqf o«il». -ilhim I h^.-ajfi? t)*?! iars^iw 

1smi¥0Tt- «r tfea «»r «tet «®» f'Oiii,>;r «&^t strifes bL?r ttsut »1» eert «^ 
eri»l|4«<s o^^^r lit* f«aiil«y a Isii t^rytaf te iw^^ tiei? ^y ®ff XiJe» aiSid 
jdi« riOKOlT f «41 to ills »ty#-:it *^-t» t3i»s car «i«ie i« i» in«?^. fb» 
m^e 9mm i« * »%9p rl^t i&r%tr »%rlM,«ii4^ h«-s'» 1^' froa* «<^ ®f ^i 

«»jS( ctfXne r*li«ti1t t^«a«ar to fe^^eat^fiire wAXm «n ls««ar* ^'^** ?3rloif fe9 

of my h!»m or ^<iXX or ^^xijiMitg oC !g^t kla4.« 

It wm »oa^t on «r«@r«*exit«^dU£M'U.i« &o alaow llmt 
fir«»t trial Fati«r0«i ^m «o»Ui'i«ii ttet ""fiito &U am XmM to 7i«;^t 
m $Mt m «^ 8t«l^«»9 into ^0 etM^t ^**«* «m4 tlmt «a^ »^:^ «t«7t 
Of pr«otteii|^««t« «%xu$ tl^.t te tslgoiird & »t^mmx% to l^o j&jfjr^^^t* It 
mj& %h@ pmrp»m oir tliia oreo&^OAffila^tlan te ias^riM^ p&tt«ir@OB*£ 
to^titDiiEisr* km^^mim. tlKit !^hftr« «9»« iiono iHi^s^pissaoy %#t««oea lilo 
ttatiMM^ oa ^i«^ rir%t isi»d is««md tri.*%Ii»» it ^<?<icil4 iii»:r^ly ^?« to $io 
«r«^i'8»llifey or t&j» «itei«»« and y^^elaro a omsid^rfttloa o;r tli® mml^BA 

^ ^Mi> t«ati»iiir* 

-mit Xtm i» w«ai m»t$l#(!. tl»a>t isQKl&rii'mtOi'y tmi^i&mm«i io «i 
^^BMistion Ctfr %}sm JitsT* «.^^«!9t w^ten itae «%iatt»«o« io &o «4@a.r %Wb 
xio ir>':!^i#c»:t&'bl« ttii%d» oiMili3. «o»g) to a &<m%T&gir ooooluaion* dtemoKt y* 

SaUr «tf sl»|^is«i. 33® Xll. A|^. itsi Saa^iJidEl ▼• •lyaSS^.BKJLJSjtjL 
30» III* I06*} P<wvi«>^dA^ Q-oisrt^ ODonaot t^^ ^ia toatlBMB^r tm iMe 
oSiflMiifai of ooooof lantt tteqr pi^oii ool:*'' ii^»« tHit tio^^tion vitetiuiir or aot 
t^r« 1» stfiy ': vi#oa»o in tho rmm^ wMoli* wltl% ci^Xl lt» x&nie^msM,m 
lisf?r«3io^» t^md«» to eiiiii^ifort 'Ih^ «4&iit»« of «.oti<oa# TM«» r^O.* i» i»o3lX 


'. 3t«» infer : 

•m Tm 

fmi9 iMt; 

>.Js '*aEe" ai* 

I M 

■i txk 

'!.«!» *^3» ;■• t© 

■ ;f%*>;ff«j ... 4111' 

4» iOMMI 

«#iii» !Ciir# «Krt #<Hi^ ^4tAf m mim 
..^^.... ...... ^'4igi. ttfv mH Wm iiiiijiwii 

:-€* i^M » W^yMft «H6r ««V» -JflpiMBi 
MlUk MbJbr ^(CitA « it «mi» ««• 

■'■■.rT' ttiH «ait f iiicll 2 
m im mamm 

lU* tmt «teir« i^ ■umtt% mnki: tiMt i» -p^saia^ i^^im a a^tim fm 
ft l^r^aptttry li^t3m®ti«tt the ■^iai«atl«tt» le^f fth« pte^mi^nvi^^^ 9i ^3m 

«»g toil j-mj tee «lrsi,®Uy i$&*xrnMoUi& by tvs^aty «lisM8s&#» af «<4W»a, 
A T®y«iot f^T Urn. ;,.li..iatlir i-'^Uoasif Uwj *iwsi*tiPii Wifwth.w it ie 

^«»i.«!»g: ft'^*»s'n»l«4 n^ ft 4i*!l.^gfe^»A% s(f^i«r©d» f»F tit* App«liiit5«- -ousrt Ui^Ott 

€iirid««wt» la tin© r**dnl to @u»t«iStt it» «* irertiiat sslwiaa ba c^iresft^d. 
If iSm ®?tart i» »r tJsee apiaisa vl^^t tl3^r« i» evl<!e£»e« ia t3^> reccRr^ 
■»fela^, »%m4iMg »l«t# 1® «aaf'-ri«i«at t« aa-^^tsda mesih & rj^r-^ict* %t«ft 

mB mmifmnt w^i^it af all ^« ^vi^««i8e» tbsa l^ie »«tiett akmil^ be 

t»i«l ^y 4wr3r.« itii%liaffl. 

tSiio %«»t Isasis s^ijtft® lMi«a afliwsisstsntly f «ai.aR«»4 I15? ar!»iri«^atn-t m 
m^ it |teT«ft8ir« %^;^@»i@'^ m ^w«>s^i<m ^«tlis*r Uie*^^ i« »%a^ «sviet« 
ia tins T«0or^ '^^tMoihf wim t^ll iia rc»;^j^«jtal93r« ln£6T^,:(M»mtt t«s»a» 

«r amiarm &o^'^i»mry S&t ^idjitUf to slk»«« ti»^& »% etoA ia«a»4ii»««^ 
|ffi«r to tlwt a9v^id«tti «li» ^M iM ^a 4^Gftj^i;»^>^ «f 9r4ijm3ry tmtif m& 
9imHm, f«fT hMT mm »>f«itQir« /^ituni^^ 3»er 9^m %»&%i»aa^ iu^tm-^twi 
tliftt s^ «i<s aot 3.0^ »ftffir fitvppiag fr«ii tin^ avofbt beyaiid ^Ite 
tmXXm oab* «lter«$ i» tli» tmtisumsr Of ?»tt«r««M ^ tite »ti:m% £2m« 

m& w#«t«* Xft mws f«3r Una 4ux7» imdw pr«p«f iii«tr«^tliB»a« %• 
#«t«fiiljfte iittet%t»r «r »«>« tMs 3<9n«ti«»ft«d <&-ws am'is Aii4 m-MtXim mi 

ttim. ■m%w.^&y ife i» mmifm&%3iisr ^mimt tlw '«ij^t «l* tim ^:vie.«^tm9 
i» fur th* trial ooart Uj^ott a«itifln foy a a«w trial** It ■ii^ft %© 

:r: -a£«»«f: ,r 





■iiwiJtHiJ « ■'■ 



tJt <-■»««»» 



.,„.:..;.„.. » 



■ ;Jr= 

3 Mi • 


■•^'^.r:^ T"" 


,*^ 4 


■^4-: ,'i': ».v. ,;,., ^|S{$ HJi 

itMi <S!-^ 

', !■ * .... V r 

W ■^a'^ •,-•'• i,y^ 

mti #«&4 e^»K'->«M|» 

t mmmah &m tli« ^^«c>« will hmm t@ 1»« «#4a r<$t3riid» w 

y« trial «f «te» rnvmn* 'n»#T--i'«i»«i tit® 4-u<!J0S«!»t oT Ui» J'-^-i^isarld* 
eowrt 1» »«rv«r0«€ m^ tli« «*v.uis# la s«ii»d«4 tm a at«s^- trial. 

aoiXlvim* y* i»f fiitel :''^«ii3ifla» J«« 



ml, «ll» m»t^vi'^ 


■i x^rSim'- 




Appellant ff 

receiver » 




9 0I.A. 602^ 


John Jeffrey filed an amended bill of complaint in the 
circuit court against Hub'bard Woods Trust & Savings Bank and 
William L. O'Connellf as reoeirer of the hanky to which the 
latter interposed a general and special demurrer, t^on O'Connell's 
death» Charles H. AlljerB was appointed as successor reoeiverp and 
it was ordered that he he substituted as a defendant* Alhere 
adopted the deimirrer filed hy o* Connelly and upon argvunent the 
court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the amended bill for 
want of eqtiity. 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 170,400, upon giving sixty days' notice of its 
intention so to purchase. The bank entered into posoession of the 
premises under the lease, and continued in possession tintil the 
receiver was appointed. 

February 7, 1932, the auditor of pul^lic accotaats closed 

■£0d .A,I Oe^ 

6X1* at ^aijRlqaaDo io Hid &0&c&c£«5 sui bsilxl y.o'i^'io't' nrioX 

boa ^Ui&E srgalya^. ^ (fajfcT a&oovv bredduil SatiljsgB iruoo ihiotlo 

e'lXsxmoO'O isoqU .i^'sii/iaab Xjel&sqa l>n« Isi^tiB^ & beeogtcs^nl aatfJal 

s^acflA »;JnBb«el9b & an boiisit&sdlij)^ dxf ©xl ^aritf baTsbtto aaw *i 

9ri* *«smir,5iT.8 noqif bn.B ^Il&jnrcorj'^ "^csf bolllt icsrrufissb ©if* be^qoba 

•lO'l IXicf bo&ii{>iK.r. ejrfj bssclinsib bn.s t©rt«««»b sjeW b«n±B;JatTa Jtiifoo 

.bewollol: Issqqe aMT «x* 1o inaw 
«8aei «I isdittsToH ;J,s£fd' IXicf babaaatts adi moil at^oqqjB *I 
baieiao jinafi asnirati rS iaaiT abooih bt^dduK arid- bns ;JnjB«JteXqxaoo 
Xlditiosa & is «a^«9"y; a®i 'to faoiieq £> ^o i idusd srC;^ o* ©asaX « od-fli 

orii lo noloaoi -,aoq o;ttii: sVa^oSa-. :!{0^cr ©ilT .sa^o'xijq o;) oa jnolrfnsJni 
9x1* Itituj aoiaaeaaoq nJt bswnWno© btts ^eaaal sdi lohmi asalnsiq 

.&9*niciqqa asw tevlsoe^ 


the "bank for examination and inspection, and thereafter numerous 
conferences v/ere had between the bank officials, its depositors, 
its stockholders and the auditor, with the riew of reaching some 
agreement whereby the bank might continue in business or be liqui- 
dated to the advantage of all concerned. April 4* 193S» a meeting 
was held between Frederick Dickinson, Edv/ard A* Anderson, Joseph 
C* Cormack and 0. Laser, representing the bank and eertain 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, that he had been assured that the P.econstruotion Finance Cor- 
poration would make a loan by which the depositors would r eceive 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 would accept 8Cf/? of their deposits in lieu of their 
entire payment; that there wotQd be no suit for directors' liability; 
that the good name of those associated vdth the enterprise would be 
preserved and the bank v/ould either liqiiidate or continue, as was 
deemed best; and that all the foregoing contemplated arrangements v/ere 
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 v7ith any others who mi^t thereafter 
become parties to 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 v/ith the C*30,000 to be 
paid by the stockholders of the bank, should be used for the purpose 
of paying the creditors 80^ of the amount of their claims, upon cer- 
tain conditions including the agreement of cOTiplainant thfit the lease 
and contract between him and the bank shoiild be cancelled without 

QiSfyrBmsa tt^iX^.s'x&rii bn.® nnoUoocrutxl has noxianlmaxQ lol -iosrf Qdi 

o;^ bsiis^aeiq;:- .: ' ■ is «*n£Kjt8lo,Bioo ar:.' ^ ;T9bXorf^oedci on^ 

->:■ .' '■ ' '.iBdstS no sai^tos ,ncfiiAiiioxu \;tf itir-atQlqmoo 

"Ig:, eoiUii.' .''.: c ; iie v '. '' ';itasB tio»a b.sxl ©ri i^jdi ,QisbXorf 

^08 eviociJ ^ Il:,i0i7 yttoit^j^iii^sb otii :io-aw ycT iujoX .« sslsn bXi/ow woid-sio*! 

9on,J3v5j8 9or; itoj^XoiiJisoJa ©ill li ^©i'ai&^cfuai. aJiapqei) trisrf* lo 

^tcrU l-diUi-.: Qii» it. «ii;.«.foXori:i4)Qi»es aia Y*-i-Ci«^»W Tcierf* ta XXwl «X OOOtOC^ 

Ttla£f.<t lo wail fi-t 8;y'xao«j[a& ttssii 'to ^8 *g®oo » feXwow 8Tod-Jt«0Q9U edi 

fT^XIitfjsil *^i:n •sol Jii/ei f!o otf bXirow «i«rf;^ i&tii tic^flOEsq aitWn© 

drf bXucw &Qi%q_t3&£iQ »dt iiihi ba^jsiooeaa asoili "io ©fliaa boos ©^-^ i^jrW 

asssr as ^nsfflxd-no© 10 aJsbiifiJiX isdtl^ bluow :rfxiBCf sd* bcfi bantsaaiq 

STew siflftmo^iJ.©'!^^ b9«Jj8X€[Bits»*fi06 ^jkIosjstoI sdi lis i.^& bus {*asef 5»ai»eb 

t'Oaihllad ia&d sdi to ©Xua 'io tosri 

X«rftf uisisif^r t&Z&l «*i Xi^^A iJojB'ijJtioo £ o*«l bsi9*iia axebXoxtaloo^a 

f>e©q'jc«q arid lol b^a^tf 0, fejptfojtta <3te«<f afsij Io axabXojtjIoeja ©it^f xtf t>i«Q[ 

-TOO noqw tawifiXo liwiiJ ^o Jairoaus &d. i la '^B axoljtbsi^o eiri* awi-^jsq Io 

©y«0X 9il.+ 3i-'irf^ i aatilfilqESi a to iisomssas''' ^ii* BaXbwXoaX aactilbnoo nlBi 

iuoditw b«XXeoxtao od" blwodc jfnjstf ari;t bne mirf nsow^fstf ^toaa-x^rtco biti$ 

payment to him other than rent accrued* and specifying the manner 
to which the money to he derired from the stockholders and the 
Reoonstruotion Finance Corporation should "be distrihuted. In said 
agreement the stockholders designated Edisard A. Anderson, Joseph 
C. Gormaok and Frederick j:>ickinson as liquidating agents of th© bank. 

It is further alleged that April 8» 1932> the stockholders 
executed a so-called collateral agreement in pursuance of Bftid plan; 
which provided that the lease and contract "between the o\'axer of the 
huilding occupied Toy the hanky and the hank* should be cancelled $, 
and that a new lease should be entered into, by which the bank would 
agree to pay to the ovmer any rent then due him, and rent at the 
same rate for such time as the liquidating agents sight require the 
premises. The collateral agreement provided that complainant, a 
stockholder and creditor of the bank, would sign the stockholders* 
agreanent of April 4, 1932, but would not be required to pay any 
amoxint toward the f 30, 000 to be paid by the stockholders and would 
release the stockholders from their liability to him as a creditor 
of the bank. 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 particiaarly by Frederick Dickinson, 
representing the officers of the bank, that arrangements had been 
concluded for securing the loan from the Beconstruction Pinance 
Corporation, that the stockholders had raised $30,000 pursuant to 
the plan, and that carrying out the plim 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 


siU 5ix*? aiabXoiiifood^a oxli laott'j: b»vlia6 ©cf oi y:eflom 9iii xfoMw h* 

ineXq fel^n 'to soaftweiwq ni icieim&9't^B LsieinlLoo baXXjae-oa « 6e*i;o8x© 

«f>9XX»oiiRO 9rf 6Xi/or/a ^'AtUifH arii bus iiin&d[ eiit -^d bsiqwooo wnibXxmf 

isXifC'^^ 5fn.?cf ^di doMv/ v:cf ,c.t0x baieJns ocf bX&ode oaesX wan « i&di oob 

. iS0i »ru5 ,fitirt 9SJb a&ili d^nstr y^s ssflTisro arii orf \;sq o;f eaisa 

»rf;f aiiwpai ^fxtgira ejxtaas anijBfeiJU'piX edi ej« aauJ iloua lo'l eisii ©Mee 

£5 «ji:i*5iii,sIc-nT;;D usclrf habiiTOiq- #HO(n"saics« Xflrrs^aXXoo 9i(T »8a8imsTq 

♦iattabXoxIit ; fiTiie bXi/ow t:5{xisc srf;t "io ic;fifeaio bxus «abXorbiood-B 

■^pis Xn(i ci betiitpet dcf ;ton bXwov/ Jjurf <i;C^X « > Ix'tciA lo ^xtanBaTgjs 

bXwpw bfis a-rsbXoristoOifG edi xd bitsq »tf od' OOOtOSf ari^ biawo* (txmoms 

lo^iibsio « a^ ailxl o,? \;;HXicr8J:I rl&di tmrl srtablorf^Coo^ta axf^ esfiaXei 

orC;'- "w'i "o'-'lTOTG" T-r^^ti.crl: .tn^iaoaxs^ XsTaJjsIXoo eifl «a£nBd axfd lo 

- . ._ , 'iirl- Drfrt "to ;'n')in9B'£f/d'alb lo Tanxxac! 

• CiOStCi": lo d-iiBniaXqfii' ; -o"!!: tS&jBfii at aw ajnam 

■^d" bXo? asrw (TOBtUisIqicoo ^SSeX %1U XItcjA * -rf^ bagaXXa ai iX 

tCfCSfliioiCi: ^rfoiiabST*?: frtf Y-C*-E«X*fo±*v . .a^flags 'gBiiablj/piX ori.t 
aaetf hsii a^flsuta^nas'r ,2l««(f 9jtf;t lo aiaolllo Qdi artl^nseaiqatt 

.::ij&iuq OOO^OC^ baaisrt barf aiebXorfifoaia sri^f ;tBCf;J ,nol;f3!roqaot) 

'. cino±*ibnon s«w ^XXulGaaoeja'a riflXq; affiJ isso ^aixt-tso iBdi bae ,n3X<i oAi 

wan - jalrtai^ne bixf« nao»X aid •'arfiXlaoneo rfoenxaXqiaoo fro x£tm 

artsoillo bna a^ness a^i**?- .J3« tfnjanljBlqiHoo *Mi ;aajsaX 

iaoraaaxBii ba*«Xqfli©*noo ^lii oinl LQiao' ica bXwow eA italS Jtned' aili lo 

ooxxBXtiU nol;*s>«rr*8ixooeH arf* «oTt baTiao'^i ad" bXworla n«oX art* aseXxji/ 

Corporation, and tlie creditors had agreed to take 30^ of the 
amcnmt of their respective claims, and that he was assured that 
all the necessities for such agreement had been complied with 
except the action required of hia» the coaplainant, and that 
there was no dou'bt of the success of the plan; that in ftill 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 eenl with the "bank sxui 
the liquidating agents, wherehy in consideration of the rents 
therein reserved and the covenants and agreement contained in the 
stockholders' agreement of April 4, 1932 j and the oollatcral agree- 
ment of April a, 1932, to te kept, ohserved and performed by the 
lessees, complainant cancelled the lease and contract executed 
i^Iovemher 1, 1926, and leased to the bank and the liquidating agents 
the said premises for a term " commencing on the day th e li giddating^ 

aiC ^nts inform the les sor in Tsrit ing that t hey desire to take poBseesion , 

Pinanae * 
of the premises immediatel y after the loan from the EecOTistruotion / 

Corporation * * * has been consummated , and ending at the expiration 

of ninety days thereafter." By this agreement lessees undertook to j 

pay as rent |223.33 per month, and it is alleged that all these things 

were done before any suit was brought to close the bank and before ftie 

appointment of a receiver. 

The amended complaint further alleges that th© loan i»as net 

secured from the Reconstruction finance Corporation, and none of 

the \uider takings required Of any one other than the c taaplainaat 

were fulfilled; that a receiver was afterward appointed for fee 

bank; that the creditors did not accept 80^ of their deposits in j 

fulll that the stockholders were sued for their full statutoiy 

liability to the creditors of the bank; that the taxes were not 

paid; and the premises were never taken possesRlon of by the liqui.- 

dating agents. After the receiver was appointed* h© eleetod to 



mii lo ^t,Oe ojted o* befn'^s^ b^ aioiJtljei:© tuS^ fees tacliBioqioZ 

im£i 3i(ifi^ oriit ditii iiMsa ^i-j5is« i-K^atD^TS-s £f6*Ji*rw Vort s &bxm iV^S^J. 

dj&i aX b^iil^^imo iEUii£i3er^& btm aitt-msasrosi mii htm btm^atrtil^Tsiii 

-9S1SJJ3 X«as#jeXXoo aii4 bxijB ^SowX , 1» Xltfi/ '*<? ^fisatosis* *«:ts>6XoilJfcoia 

ox^d' -,;rf' rj®ffli«'iT»q baa bevisatfo t^Jcfs^ 9d c* tSC^X <S XiiqA 'to ^rtaai 

b&iiio9X9 i&stim^o &sm aa^eX exfj &»XX90k«o ia<5nJtBXaHjoo nBeaaeei 

alasSJ3 BOiit^felwpiX add feofi M&t^ ftsit o* foessoX fena «3£GX ^X ■xoctosvc'.i 

^xtJ:4'gJc>Jbtir>xX ori^ '%fib eUi ax> ^al^nosmoq^ mj9i « -lol aealsuniq, bt&a sri* 

\ aol J pjrxi omooK stdi m ott ../i»Pj._ J**?*,, JS'i^ta YjXa^j& X &Qcijgi &.9&iM»tfi 9d4 Tsf (^ 

BO liB'xiig;x» alt* ;^b ^aX^^- <'"y!i^/i^3'f^K^Q' ^ , ^.8?JC .'?.''¥^.-* .* . " .Q?.- ^ , - ^?'^,g ^^->' 

agxilili ©B©il* XX« ;tex{it foo^sXX '^jrts tri^aoffl i:ati W«esS'| ^aai q« \&q^ 

. levxsjoei a 'to d'necid-riioqqa 
#oo (3.£sw njsoX 8rf^ jTxIiJ a9Si»XXs wii«tin«l *Jsl£;Xq;ffl:.-;»0 babnaata axIT 

AKfixiijsX(2C» o 9f(;J rijiricr -xofCio sad yiPbi -Ijfi^ batJiup^r asaxafipJxebJiw sdi 

ef& lol bt>Jttitoq.q,a btJswi&it» ajsw ttaTrisoa^ a ;t/ji{;f IbsXXllXul eiew 

ni a*iaoq9ib 'xxarLJ "io ^08 :^<J8oofl *ok bib a^aJibaip sri;* *£££;!• {slaacf 

^xorfw^fl^Td iij/'t 'xx&xii io'.t bawu aaow STsbXcrWoo^ta sxf;^ cfariiT jXXtf^£ 

*on oiew a»xo* a/i^ ir^i jjtafid" airii lo a^oJ'ibeio atii oS x^^^i^'^'^^l 

_ "-.trjIJiX 9rf* ^ "io iroinaoaaeq; rtaatt^rf iav®ci n-xaw aeaXMaicq wfi boa tftiBq; 

o* te#i»9Xa oil 4£H»^ll£oqq« asw isvlsoart ari* tcaJlA ••;t£[«BA 8«i*fib 

disaffina Tsoth oontJfEctB with Jeffrey. 

It is alleged tliat the representations set out were laade 
in Buch a '.my that oomplainant was deceived ae to the Isank and its 
agents' ability to oarry out the plan of reorgsniaationj that the 
representations were made recklessly and without knowledge as te 
whether they oauld "be carried out or not and for the piirpose of in- 
ducing complainant to cancel his lease and contrtict and therehy lessen 
the liability of the bank and increase the amount to be paid to the 
indiridual depositors* end to reduce the amount of liability of the 
etockholdere of the bank* and that such representations constituted 
a fraud upon coaplain&ait» or "at the lainlmxiia a mistake of fact*** 

The amended bill sought to have the agreeiaent of April 22» 
1932, and particularly so much thereof as oancelled the lease and 
contract of November 1, 1926» set aside, by reason of the fraud or 
mistake by wliich complainant was alleged to have been induced to 
enter into the lease, and that he recover his damages for the period 
of the contract of liovember 1, 1926, when the agreement should have 
been restored to its full force and effect as an obligation of the 

In addition to the general demuirrer interposed, the following 
points were assigned as ground for special demurreri 

(a) That the amended bill sets forth a purported breach 
of contract, and equity vdll not grant the ri^it of resciseion 
for a mere breach of contract J 

(b) that the amended complaint alleges a purported failure 
to perform on the part of the various defendants, but does not allegp 
fraud, mistake, undue influence, etc.i 

(o) that Vvilliam L. O'Connell, receiver* was not a party to 
any of the purported agreements, and therefore was not liable there- 

(d) that the receiver rescinded and denied liability under 
the lease of the bank to complainant; 

(e) that the purported contracts are complete and embrace 
all the understandings of the parties, :and caiinot be varied by parol 


BUI f>a£i 3i«fl<f odi q;^ aa b@ri&o9b Bjsn insxtlialqsioo iadi tj«y/ a doua ni. 

-i:ci. lo aaoqiwq; aii* 'lol foas itOK to }sso baixxfio acf blwoo x^Ai x&di&d^ 
flsaasX -^tfoiajf* tax; fosiitcmo bm 9a««I aM Isaa^.o oj- 4«©ttiBiqffloo s«-to«J^ 

ftd* lo Y^iXirfsJtl lo cfffltoiufl a£i ttoubBi oi bus «oxe*iaoq:sb SJusbi-rtbut 

&Kfi ssBoX ©xli feeXlaoiiso !5J^ 105>-X9J«S ffsxHrt os x-f'^'sX^oi^-sfitj &«■« *S<f:?X 

'io bus>.i'i oxf^ lo fioa«9"i x^ «96i3-s ^^'O «SS9X «X ^©ostsvol lo ;ratj^iiioo 

cd r :7cir!in.t iratf svjari o* bsaoXXs acw ^xx^BaieX^jmoo lioixfw iccf ©jte^aiai 

&di to jttoiJB55iXc/o n.s,? b/\ ^eo^ - .. j/i a;H tj^f b^tQison need" 

jaiT/oXXol ©xi* tboaoqa::..-*rii. ^stt2;j:/ffl9& X^ionsg axicf od- aaiiibhSi «I 

iSdTTwtuab Xi^iosc[B lol bmsorg a« bsixgiatjjs arrow s*xiieq 

XiaBtisioo io xIofi«:td' oiera i? lol 

•TCtfXiJBl faB^ioqiaq ij a©aalX£ iattaXcjcKfoo RebftaiEtfi «rf* iadJ (tf) 
flgeXXA t«lx 0^6 iijd' , sdja^'jfexsalaJb swoJfcxn- " " ' ':* no jM-sotT 

oi Xit&fi B ion e«w ttSTisost ^XXoOnoO'© .1 aisxXXiW d^* (o) 

-3'teil;t ©Xcf;?.''' :' " " ••^■' - - /^ -^ •"•>r' ■> ?>" ■• , ■.;' r,.-:-r«'.c,'rr .-, K' ,fvf,q'ix;q ox(;f lo \asi 

\ XQbSkU 

t^htw xii.ll<ie.iL bolfisft foxie booffi 't odd ;}«r{;t (b) 

eo«Ttdm» bflf. ©ieXqmoo exs e,ii>srtismtt ba^tcoqicaq; «i(* 4«xI;J (©) 
Xo'Xisq •^rf beiifiv stf tfoftxijEjo fexrjs ^aciiJaisq sri^f lo «^Jt&xiaia-sofc>fxx; &sii XXb 


(f ) that the Gsncellation of the lease of Hovemfeer 1, 
1926, was by the voluntary act of co^iplaiaarit, and was not 
effected or influenced "by any fraud; and 

(g) that complainant has an action at law and not in 
equity for resciseion. 

Complainant piooeode upon tlie theory tlint his proper remedy 
is hy bill in chancery to cancel the contract of ApriJ, r2, 1932, "be- 
oause of fraudulent representations alleged to have been made in 
Inducing him to cancel th;> agreement of November 1, 1926, and to 
enter into the subsequent agreement} that "after lie.ving done so, 
the court should proceed to do complote juBtice by swarding him 
compensation for the breach of the contract revived by ouch can- 
cellation in so far as in the present situation equity has awsh 
power •* 

The principal question involved is whether th6 amended com- 
plaint sufficiently sets forth such fraud or mistake of fact as to 
afford complainant the relief Bought* It must be conceded that vd th- 
out proper and sufficient allegations of fraud or mistake of fact 
complainant cannot maintain the amended bill. The only allegation 
charging fraud or mistake is based on that part of the amended bill 
which alleges that T>fr1'1nr»Wl represented to complainant 

"that arrangements had been concluded for the securing of the loan 
from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation; that the otockholders 
had raised #30,000 pursuant to the plan, and that carrying out the 
plan succesBfully was conditioned only upon complainant cancelling 
his lease and contract of sale with the bank and entering into a new 
lease in accordance with such cancellation and as a part thereof; 
tha.t plaintiff informed the said liquidating agents and the officers 
of the fcjRid bank that he did not desire to interfere with the 
reorgaiaiaation thereof, but aould not enter into such an agreeraent 
unless the said loan should be received from the Reconstruction 
Finaiice Corporation, the creditors of the bank agreed to take 80^ 
of the aiaoimts of their r e spec tire claims, and the entire amount of 
$30,000 be raised by the e tockholders , and the said plari oarried out 
in full; that he was assured that all the necessities for such 
agreement had been complied with excspt the action of the coEiplainant, 
and that there was no doubt as to the success of the plan; that said 
Frederick Cickin&on, in the presence of the officers of the said bank 
and the other liquidating agents, stated that he h^d been assured that 
the Reconstruction I'iiiance Gorporation vould laake a loaxi of the 



-■'-■' ■-■£ -^flte "vrcf J)©ojK©ifi'tai -xo 'i-^-:>'..- rt->! 

fsi jj'ojn; DHB WfiX in tx:iiS(jB «u.? asxl. i'fl«nijBXqmoo- *aif# (g; 

.rxolaai»as-r -xoi \^j'xi;y© 

n.'; 9&,a£i xii^;. -j-^'jIIh atJolieiaaaQ'KiQ'x ^■iiaXijL»jj*ji'i lo davAO 

. ; , G'^st.voll lo *xi9Md»asfl sdi Isoneo o? a Jul SJ^^^^'^'*^ 

,0 T • ' ,tnora9©"£3JB *n©JLrp«ecfi/a «i£^ &tat i&iao 

alx: cjiu t-r-ov-'fi ^3 ^oiJuifJ, siiXqaoo o5 o;^ faeeooig blxioxfa ^rctfoo ©rlrf 

: >5 xbI OS ni aoiialloQ 

-raco baonomrj fed* •x9il;tGx£v; ai bavlovjax aol^Jasijy XaqxsJii^q exfV 

': bisai'i xfojjo £(^%o% a^as ^iaeiaillwa jjcialq 

tbjjlt lo a3f«;taxBt 'xo Jjwsil; l:o axiol^JssQlis ^c^iox^Ufa bna aaqotq itn 

£COxJ^£^oXIs Xi-^&o O'!^'-' •XXitf boba&ma mii sxisiatjim iotinno itmalalqmoo 

r •":^ r' ' " '--'-'■ — -- ■ - -• ; - -^riB ^xuf;^" 

otli Eio^rl; 

SftiX neXq 

wsi? ': ;.X oxif 

• rcl aasel 

at^' ::x;. r. ;f ■■■rf# 

»J5&i diifT yteiis^iHi osf .; 00 isxb oxi cfijrlj ifm, . - io 

;tr-'^rt'"":"^x5 aii iiour: -ifrJ. mi: .'"iTrr '"•"''' , los'xsrld-* i. .. ..'^Jt 

•rx^sijor iijaoX oiisd eu« dayXfli/ 

■.■■ 0^ 'j :;■ V tXIOXii.i'XOiiloD OOKjoXXi"? 

'to JiiWuvi;: orriuXKB , uui/..!:;; uv.' - '-iaxlj xo ad-nxfonus ^ii;t \o 

xfawa uat as' . :>■ anw ari i.sri.t jXX;A ni 

tSti&al&Zq,moo ©iU to . . 1^4-;.; fisaef bsd itnomssTa* 

bi&e rfjsxl;^ jxujXq sxii Ic ui^ec ;ji,'t. .^i-. c;' c. vdijou on asw aaoxli ^TXlrf fexxB 

2(m(f S>i/»e sffi "io STssti'io »tii lo ©ons^siq «jii;l fll ^noaniaJoiCT oloiiafesril 

iiuis < . ^i-s 


requioite amount t o oarry out the plan. * * "*" 

The forcf-oing repreBentations are alleged to have furnished 
the inducement for complainaJit's entering into the agreoaent of 
April 22, 1932, which cancelled the existing lease said contract of 
Hovember 1, 1926» Hov/erer, the agreement of April 22, 1932? re- 
cites that it is Kiade in consideration " of the rent s h e rein re served 
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 "oomiuencing on the 
day the said liquidating agents informed the said lessor in writing 
that they desired to take possession of said premises immediately 
after tjsie loan from the He construction Finance Corporation, referred 
to in said stockholders' agreement, had been conB u m iiatedt** 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 bee^ secured from the Reconstruction finance 
Corporation, but on the contraryp these agreements were made "in 
order to further aid the reopening of the bank for the purpose of 
securing a loan * * * and the payment of * * * $30,000 by the s tock- 
holders of said bank*" These circumstances, taken together irith the 
representation that "complainant had been assured that the Reconstruction 
Finance Corporation would make a loan of the requisite amount to oarry 
out the planp" reTaut the allegations that complainant "was assured that 
all necessities for such agreement had been complied with * * *p»» and 
•that there -was no doulit of the succesB of the plan." Complainant was 
a business man and had participated in some of the conferences held 
from the time of the closing of the bailk to the date of the contract 
of April 4, 1932, and was thoroughly familiar with the proposed 

', -.lU'iiiL, 

'^■x/iO 6i SttuomB »iloltJy&'i 

& ai. b^iil-^imo ■n?-- ,.^miiaat& ixisaftri aiasaeroo 9ii* "io baa 

a££^ ao st-i--^-- "--^^'' rt©axMOT<i feeeXmeS) ©ri* bXori foxis-. oA&i oi ei s-sz'.aQl 

^ttl&iT<r ni :-- - -:. bXB-^ sdi b^ai'ttlat srines* ^nU nb tup U blue, sdi ^sb 

Y.X9;Jsxf)9tBBf.X ssaiMOTcr foi"^; 'to xioxaa0«aoq o^Ib;^ oi ba^lBQfo \'2fl3 J'^ulcf 

9»a.3ii!:iiu<I «X b«s «oi*s'X9foianor. r: ' , r-f^Es»Bt9«^afl a:t«6Xorf>Ioode axiJ io 
»S£&X «SS Xi-»s- "io io,mimo ml )ST«*n9 ^HBnlsXgctoo iIoMw Jo 

ai" Bbmi 9rm a;tii9ia98iB« ^esidi ^X^-^^woo f^ifO no o^ifcf ,av,i:is^'toq100 

j)i^ fl,-i ,:,/ bfifiXqcaoo fl[t>©<f b*^£i ^asaisa'JSJB xioi; .:i;Ji83»0!»n XXa 

em ia^ak&lqmo 'KttBlti adi "to aP^&titim: '^^^ ^^^^"^ 

bXerf BoonoTolKco sMiC to »m«a iSi fj»*jai? iel* 'ieq bad l»^to nsHi ea»«Xai;rf £ 

^QtiiiiRoo &Hi "io ©J^fe eif;^ r" tCc-cT e«f5':<' 'ir ^riXrrfjJ.j: -^ff* to ^Rf.t.l- '^if* moil 

reorgaaisation plan, .'^e eubeequent agreemento vrere ths result 
Ox these conferences. If complaiarjat had 'vvisbed to ctuacel tlie 
lease of lIovGia'ber 1, 1926» and execute tlas contract of ..pril 22s 
195^:,, only upon tlie sxpress underiitanding that the agreeaent would 
T3C void if the plaii of reorgaaaiaation vere nat ooasuEE^iated , it 
would have been a simple 2i:.ttsr for tiiii to have ao provicsd in the 
agreement* It is apparent froa the allegations, "ivhen takya to- 
gether vlth the plain provisions of the various agreement;* i tliwt the 
statements Alleged to heon made "by lUoklntjon were not represen- 
tationej of present or pant facts, but rather of events which all 
parties hoped and helieved woiild 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 repireaentation tliat the 
stockholders had raised $30,000 purcuant to the plan. If Dickinson's 
statements were honestly made and in good faith, the suoceae or 
failure of the plan would not make the statements fraudulent. 
( Miller v. Sutliff , 241 111. 521.) 

The law applicable to proosedinga based upon predictions 
and promises similar to those alleged to have been made in this pro- 
ceeding is fairly well eetabliahed, and is v/ell stated in 26 Corpus 
Juria, p. 1087, sec. 25p as follows j 

"An actionable representation muat relate to past or exist- 
ing facts and cannot consist of merp- brokon promises, unfulfilled 
predictions, or erroneous conjectures as to future events. Fredic- 
tions as to future events are ordinarily regarded as nonactionable 
expressions of opinion upon which there is no right to rely, and 
obviously cannot constitute fraud where made in the honest belief 
that they will prove correct. Thus actionable fraud csamot be based 
on erroneous predictions as to the future conduct of third par ties." 

It is further stated, on p. 1090 of the same section of Corpus Juris* 

"Since the failure to perform a covenant does not relate badk 

to and render the staae fraudulent, redress for fraud ctuuiot be secured 
for mere breach of contract, and this is especially true virhere the 
agreement was made in good fslth; and in such c aaes the proper reme<^ 
is an action on the contract." 

Complainant argues that in chancery it is not essential to 

&;I| XiiiioflUi* ci b&si9iw B&d iil(ss.&islAj^si&» "il .aaonorrs'ineo sesri;^ 'io 

bXif.-y-/ c^iaujGs>-ia.; t^jf i'^iiiJ 8«ifejra»^ari:i»&ii6r asaw^ta:© ' iW;' ■ aoqir %iito tS5@X 

; fv ■■¥''■:'.- n..-. «YaiC .©♦ iai4 ^*1 wi*£kEi 9lq:ail&- & msi^l armi blsJovr 

&iLi .... «..!j«&BX!3®:S5i.y awoiiey aui| If uxxolabroiq xiIbIci 9si^ dtlx ■^adisi^ 
-i-is>Hii%c^&'x. ifitt si6»w itoaaliEoitt :^ a&ujwa n?>»€f ftY^sd cd- lj03©-CXij 8;t-fiE5>fitffl.t.n*c 

XX£. rfoMw Qlli^v® ^o 'xoflifa'i iifCf « ansa's *£2#i(j 10 tf«©a3t(j "io BaoA;t.9^ 
bf^6na.cfc-. a4T «©«»itrt sri* nx noqfi.^rf 6X«ow fcov©.Us>tJ fciis &4iqod as-tdrrsq 

fifjcx ;3 *A^ ."»»««« SJB ae»<f ^-afJ e©aixi3l«j:<l'' *cfi# -^csl) *oa eeob IXid" 

a»;2oaiii2f{..xa 'il ^osIq a{W t»* $ (ums-utti OO^tO&i; boB±«3t bjiy>.»it9*ifX-oxM*.>^s 
v'o "uopijXffi! a££<f ,flixfl5 Docs til l«ts sftaia tX*B«»f>'* ®''=*'^ e^neftW^As^a 

^ ■ ;.-»r"-'"-— •!■ :, .-fr. -rf.-' r>r<?j« fton aXirew jBfiXo erfvt To f>^irXl«1 

,-.XSr: *XXI X*2' «p.Cj;»u5 .v IkXXM) 

-otq eXtl* al o^sm U«*©«r ©vxyl e^- t^QlLn o^^&t Gi 'mlimia esaliaoriq: foUB 

taw0.LXp'l s^. «8S -.00a ,V80X «iqf#i»ltfit 

XI.ViXwlfKf \a»eiia«>'iq fiKisfcxt/ ^';.&s^ "to #ai-.swoo ci' brt/.-. sior.l: imi 

&X«raJT;tJiiojKiiOi': at; b&btJ^sS'^ xJi-xBd S>%o fe'xc s.+iisvs i5ijud-u'l od as anoi^- 

1c?^i:Xed'''d'!':»iioil f^rlj' Ei sb«M oTCfv ' ', '5:0^0 focnr.o yXbwoIvco 

03a«d ocf im:iiuo bwixl stlti&mUo.. - ■' en»rq: XXXw ^^sff* ^^bM* 

«.8sl*iB(i b'ikdi to it}vhm& n'suiv '^^C r;? i. .invTi^J-oibaiq; laiioaKO'X'i© no 

■<> '■^ 

oif* oiDnfw ©wit* \;XX6iooQ«« ai tsM* - t J -. -; 

*,ioRi'tiif>o S:v:, 

0* XBiirtosaa Urn n. .- v,...oHi;rfo fti Ufi^ muvn-. insiaxg^mm' 


the cancellation of a oontr ict for fraud tlmt the party making 
tbe fraudulent representations knew theia to la® falB«> eren though 
Buch knowledge is nececsery in an action at lai^r for fraud &nd de- 
ceit* and Ms counsel cite and rely on (Ml e t. Mub^Tx ^® 111* 14S» 
and several other Illinois deoisionB. Holding as we do that ths 
allegations of the aatonded 15111 do not oonstitute representations 
as to paiet or existing facts » or that they were falsely or fraudu- 
lently made, then© citations hare no application to the oiroumstanoes 
of tide case. The law is well eatahllBhed that eqult.T will not 
assume JurlBdiotion for a mere breach of a oontraot ( S te wart t» 
lumfordy 80 111. 192); therefore if complainant has ai^ remedy it 
lies in an action at law for "breach of the agreeioent of April S2f 

The plain facts of the case as disclosed hy the pleadings 
in (question show that complainant t ^howas the lessor of the premises 
occupied Toy the Isank and a stockholder and creditor thereof* partici- 
pated in conferences together with officers of the bank» other stock- 
holders and oreditora» to evolve a plan for liqviidation or reorgani- 
zation of the hank to the advantage of all parties oonocmcd» hy Hie 
tez-ms of which t if the plan wae aucceesfully oonsumroated » he would 
have been e:^onerated froa hiu Btockholders* liahillty and would hare 
procured a new lessee or the possession of the deaised preiaisee. 
Aecording to the allegations of the aaended bill» he wac fairly con- 
versant with the negotiationB by which all parties sought to aeike this 
pl;^ «iffeetive. '-e must asafflaie from the allejfations aiade thn,t the 
stockholders raised the reqtilBite $30,«300, and that ths plan failed 
only because the loan was not procured frcaa the Heconstruction Pinnnoo 
Corporation. 'ihe agreement of April 22 » 1932» embraced all the under- 
takings of the respective parties, and is not rehutted or inpsached hy 
the Rl3.egation8 of the amended hill. It cannot fairly "be held under 

-jsi) fe«43 6«r««t i0l wal 9& m^Xt&£i tut ni ■^t£s«a»09li oi asfc®!'^®^ d&vs 

i.s'hS ♦XX J 80g jJ^^M .▼ *^^ «G T.I*« fes» »*io X«a«j:/QO sXri fens ^ttl^o 

■%dS,i.siUi eb ©¥?. im» B*i&Xali »a^i£i4s«fc aionlXXI Ttsarf*© Xatersa h&» 

"Hiitii^'xt 'fo \JCs'>etijs'i amjwr iE«lEi iMt to «ai;?oja1: mistl^tsix* to ^ts^q «# as 
B®ii9ija^iaffi8/o'2i'.t> @il^ o4 J«5>Jt*«isiXqa;ij oij ©v**! aaoldjs*!:© ?>B»fW fofeam yJt$fi«X 

$± t &«>«»»■"?: v»^ eAil im^dutX<pB©© "»:i «*&l«Ti«tf# t(&«X »XXI 0$ ,&iolatB>lt 

«'>(oo^e ^sudifo «3{£iA£f 9Jt£i 1e A^adilte i^iw 'xaftd-^set-jr 8«^«»te:%itoo stl btimq, 

adi xu t >:>n'xoortQ$ aeX^^^q XX.9 'SrO «^^«i«t%.« fnii o| lijis^^T mii '!];» fii»±;>Mi 

M4^0w Oil ^ b@<J^BiKid»8£(oa x;XX&rlsa«»o@ji;« «i«r i«rXs 941 li w^fdM^" 'i@ amt&$ 

9rai[ bluow bus xilLtiiRXl 's^a&XoriatBo;?® eM flp^lE &«Mf»i^j»;c» i^oau 9v«e[ 

b»X.t- -. . «*'5 S^tei^p-;, : ,., )J!f3£!J0*« 

•oniwalf «to.t#o.»'ciai3.c ,,!■&?! fij^sitv aaoX ^di QSiumoo'i y.Xuo 


the allegations of the pleading that comiilainant was misled "by 
any statements aade) nor can it be said that there wae Buoh a 
mistake of fact* within oontemplation of laWp rb to justify a 
rescission of the agreement. /e think the court properly 
sustained the special deraurrer filed. Tharefore the order dis- 
missing the amended "bill of complaint for waiit of equity should 
he affirmed and it is bo ordered. 


Sullivan t P. J.» and Soanlan* J., concur* 


JbXwoiia ^nr til iisi/ilqiaoo Ic Ilxrf b»b««ffl^i arf* sclaaiiii 

.^sTsbio oa ai tt bass b9mrts.1tB arf 

^Tijovxs^ ,». ,a?Ifi5-0' ^--. *--. ^^ ,R/5VXlii/u 


( Pledntii if ) A^jfp^ll m » 

mLim imd if HMD A« JCi@is<iiit 

e-oparimers* doing "biscsincKS 

m& wmrt A. ST^lx^Si and jmisi) A« 
JCH^iKai, osrpjirtiwt'et doing 
1nti»ict«se vix^^fix tbe f Im aantt 

i29 0I.A. 602^ 

iRUilflMaii wader ths :rim mm« ma etyl* «r ^«11«a & #«lmA<»i| etad 
Q<»47 f?«ist C@ttpeny» « dorpt^ritUtn* for da£iag«« «3Ll«g«i^ to haT« lio^iaa 
8tt»t&ia«NS Her bftrt l»y faXlla^; ujitm « Btalrwigr of a buixdlac? alleged 

t© bjB,"V* l»««ri taatt«ii««!( nn4 operated "by dlf?f©a4»nt»« 0«Nry trwst CoBspmsy 
imuB »tt%P«<jtt«ally dflsttloisoa *uit ol" the q®,»o. In » trial %y the ao^rt, 
vlthmat a 4tury,th«T« va» a flxt^ln^ of guilty agt^inst #«f®n<Saat« 
"^ticsttor H* t'airiOf Boo«lv«r«<* ?ho»as a* t:;«idyt Bssury A* £'«ll«n anA 
Fr«4l A* Jolsttfiiim* o.opurtmire* ioiirif Imj^inin^et taidi^r t%Ms fins mme 
«rid otylo of Sellon k Johnson » aia^ i^Ialntiff *r< a-A>i3».g««t vmr& ¥i»B»»i$94. 
In th« ismHt of -flt®**^* JwSiweat wsaa oftiorea apor* th« fiadiiig» •ni«3'i«* 
aXter ibe J-ad^piftat as to TbooMa A« cedy wae viie«^t«d* '^CtioetoT lU 






vl •£ JJEfT^wMO 

» A 

^jA * ■ . ^•.,-. pji 








t^ A ^ M -^ A A 0< 

■si^ %,/ <.J' ® ii 1 J, ,„i, V \i (^.. 


. '^TV V*:''' » 

►A 5&5^"C '^.* 


tlsl«"'^ ,. 




J>iaTiSi Mfi«Lt9X $" Sellen, and Jot^eo^i iwre %|^««uL<»d« 

kasist fts 4SSB -«s»i lla^l<i«a »;;;•«%# Cl3i<}@.,g0« <Jn the ereMni; «f 

Mx»» '^^ilsout ^io lived in ths a^osei buiXi^ingy @:Hm left ^c l&1$««T*ft 
st.j^rtCMai la oaupae^ with suiathei' frlmad^ K&t}a.««ii Jogro^g* ^'ho «aftd 
liyvd in ihtt 'i>alXjJiitg« 7h«y lidTt 1i3xs* vaieo£i<0 «p«jrtUlfl9»t Itsr lijm 
rear 8ttir«a««t «ta iM»9e»i» t« l^^ir r&j&p©<}tiY® ap^rteusats wnts gmiMM 
%kr@n^ the aoas: r«jo- »tmlrmt,y» fimr« mua sto )>ul1» la tk^ ll^t 
»0a}i;et nlMnr* %tm :%mi.r» wa^: the s%aij^my w&b irdry d«&rk* Zm t^ 
mOl of tta« bulXdiag* a1»@ut t«^ iTetet fx-en fehe b9tt«m 8t«pt ttor@ 
«)&« «» dim Ifistp ^nu-nia^'t %ui (U^tre im« « poat 1»«t«N»9ii tM3 Isacs^ 

9s£afif«d a cdMulow to 'bm ^mst ^^m ih»»« atej«« .as pl&X&tXtf ]ir#(9««d*» 

•d <l9wa t3» «tai]n«sgr «iie had her laf t hsmi en the railing* or 

1»si!3xai.jit«l'ii and ae al^ 0ta]pfi«4 bJia felt fOTeigii slij^tH uad@7 liwr 

fft«t fm th« tr*ft4»* .<ui »h@ raat^uMl 6b<mt th« tMri t&l;@p froigt Uia 

^et^QB imt X^tt hMtUi m1atb«^ agadaet tiMe ^11* &^ iti^ hiaadTail 

ended a'baut thr««! ot«iw itvm the bott«i «tt tlw l^ft-^tauad $ide 

e«ilt0 i!«im* Zt end«# four stepe a^toTf^ tii« b^ttou an the rii^t* 

bsui^* "'Ha^ra ware as hanc! raila tm tlia lower three tttapa*** t'-^ 

t^a r««u3]ba<l for ttia paat i^ the right of the @t$dr» amS n£> aha 

<ti^ so sli« int«^jp^ad «» BOWS forai^^ ab^eat kikS f isll* fha ntapa 0a 

thftt ttida ar« T«rj BKrrfw Mrauad tha past* m»t aor^ thim »Kt inah 

witfa* It ia a ajdral otainmy* 2!tia pl&lntii'f idufter*^ a^iriouM 

i^vcrien, Vttt no point ia aada aa to t^ in^aaat of tha dsasatsaa 

awarded • 

FlaiaUff ttoat«a4« that tbe d^fendtMaia iMra !iailif«zit ia 

flta iMtrtioult^a ( 

*(1) 7h» stairwiy ««ui cr Mttaafa €%etm <!«« to tl» 
fast thati thw atesMB ssdrala^ arauod a aanal pastt in oextaia 

pXa,m»t oonia^' to a ^oint at tim mmml pttmt* 

tn '^(sJtxvsfr^j> mdj! ." .£(«Mv ti^»%4v smvkium tavW m^ fti» cm^ORJf 

«3i>'; Or':.-' » >?riSS''» a4»i»Xi#iR*i «6«»ill'i: tStitllVDUk ilii.» ■4«i!*';4«(i»« aaJ! *jfA<»}a..' -. ■ ^■■■ 
, ■ 7>!^^r.. vft s';iD3X-r ^niU i'tml xi^X ♦v^.^'-f -• -**^^ 'v^ *-«-r>I 

^pitti «Mt £ei»«Htmr |-*ft« .,41 «iw 9Z'^ vi'*; , .uju.i.i^tt' a««X ititft'* «JW 
jla.jt.«*fir «8»t9i»tf *dL? «r«lL »t**« As-*iii>i .'•->.•.-,-» . «.u^,.,.«,i-. ^sntit him 

Ti%,rt ic*6ifsitf »##»ferfe ii^i9<£iiK tXsi *4if?^ ^. ..-..»„• .,..., jjit*- ,""-*'"»fitt»rf 

fm* s»«s:l «i»*« 'f^lsi* »«» iWMfei Naifcr**^ ^^^-' «• ,.-*-*~'^ -,..*'V 

«iio ^ .&a» «3:lM$a 9.:t« iM) Inlaid 94# m $*m *«^ wXhit^»'i m49 

>UN:i:'.,.':a |^^.«;<»'i::3tW« i:^14:aJUa^a t«i''^ «'^C0f«A»t«. Xi»Xfa(» « «Jt ^X f^C.^^W 

, •)» it's £••)*■, )il 


*(2) The stffltlTway wus aet pTwpffTly li^%m4» 

with nftrB^-srrapli (te) of i>eiiftl«a 143« ©f Btt»fi&'»Ii«yn»S.®itt B«fii5«4 

i&uiitis iwad faraigri 3Utj^ts»o© to aoetaattlate tt|=»en fiHe t»t«ps,* 

AjppellentB »ll«s ma^ J^immmA c«nt®ad tJ)uat *tiMT» i» imt m 
BctiitiXJUa. of eTid«ae« feMch ia aey 'say »>«rB« ajay r^*lss.|i«f5isjhip 

'i^yid^ j^X«s,iatlff *i» iiiiiitry oaaurr^^t" an^ that th^rt eheuld Imr^ 
%«@n a. i'Xadiiiti, fox li^«a« ^.t t^ <!m%«®| «f tim triA th.« i<slXmd3^ 

tl»« firs osuae a«t.<g st^rlt oC ) 

t^eilen and J^to©«i» ) 

*!•? 1?:, rc:i:^OTr iJTI?UL&fSli AMI? AOKS^f^Xi "toy ftnH tMt^Mwn tlui 

"IT IE TWi'mm ijnKJLAfSD Aja55 ASR^ls ^ mA %mfmtin aim 

t<>-wlfti B*851«f6» a a«Tt&ln bill, for t «o«iVBr flle^ «i the 7th iS«y 

was mvv9lnt4>a mn r®oeiv«y on t*i« ®t:fe day of S«?pte)Hte«r # 1^33 far tl3.« 
j»S'*BSlee« ld«j»t«.r? at 433S '^«ffi| HswSis^Mi i-t3P#«t( ta il»?^ City «f CMcsr^g'© 
•wltlt full, i>»wr» «f ft i-tttf^diptr »alf *m udditiaaia m<&*$t w»» mi«y«4 

Bait? CHi;st;i5. b , da?!® rs mteli r«««iv«(r aw^ tMt ataia Oh«i8««r !!• 
DAVIS w»3 r^SQ^irtT ©smS bawS elkaicg* <»f th«i Ksid }ttr«aii8«» as «s«oJl 
irfiowiTsi? «! th« 19 th 4my «f Apyllt 1®34, 


«ft:»iMf^f.f T-fr^-^ffTJl; i^e tt.!W r.^^l-^'t® 5^ ft)* 

i^'X &I.A ^^I-ii ^WUiftl 



.£it3 ^mr 

. ..- -,. . -.^-siM- 9-i fee...., ..... ...^. .... V,.., 


• Sir 


. ^^T'^-^HD 

ferj'j- . 

:!;?' lisiwt 

myi * 

. ?.>ii:.ra 

t 'V*^':' 


•■>i.:" -i^l 

'"'*-■■» mm 


jt«an» »« 

Zt is 0leji»,r fvmt. t.M8t atlpiilKti<m moS %%9 report ^ 
pr«eet8(51ii^ that ths cRis« wmu tyl«d u^^fm the tfe««i?y 1&&t (Jheet** 

d»a*« ^s!i3 l3tre*BQe^ "by I^Rlntiff that ©Tea *ienA^^ t® slso® t^--| 

t]^ tn^ildlag at 1^ tin* «f th« sosldsat* All t»r Ua^ <i?Tl4<?-ao« 
offered la ^eiimM^ was lutro^iiedtf ^oa ^s^aIC 9X C&£^iA^tia% Ohsu^^t 
E* :.«i,vlSf .H'&e^iv^jr*^ it'liJLatii'r » to supji^ert tkio 4u4eKwat a^ainfti 
t2i« 04»|m3E'tu«irsMjp« reXi.»{i eatir^ily up^n «tt tm&vitax smdfe lijr i'#t« 
l4mii«a» e. witn«&6 e&lled **oa Isehi&Xf of def^aiSaat Ch@'St«x' E» lATiSf 
lb»$«iir«r»*' "^tid ti&atiti&ut upon direst* t^t to XiY«'S at ^« preiOlsMi 
in f!iBi««tioa» tl3»t )m laaa a 4i^i^^<^ W «eeaQ)atlea» that !be 1M8.6 «a»- 
{a.cqr»4 I17 *'£^li«»i h a^t^tmcoat** tiMt he Used l)e«n j&altor of tlue bMli* 
lag f«r alne y«s.ra «nd -wim* «tll.X la that poeltlm* that tJj^r^ fir« 
cereBty-two flcte la^ titr ^^uil^^tHitt aaiS that ho took oare of thee 
>mllding hlstsioXf • Upcm $r««&*«xKaizt&tl«a ?dtn«ii» «r« not Qi»e«tieiiiod 
Iqr plaintiff %» to -who «Mpl«gr<^d hlM at «»y %.lso* fho ailpulisttiiia 
ohflWis thnt chootAT 'B* vmttm wao »ppoiiite4 t^ooItox' on t-eptevjlior 9» 
X933t ttttil that he %mfe sttiXX In «h&r|^ of Iho pro»lo«e» at? i^«i«lTort 
«{% tho doy of tho »odl^«HAt* 4prlX X^» XiM* Tho tvinX e(W»a«mi«4 on 
Merrenlaor X3» X^35» Bonooa h«td boon jonXtoy oJT tho buiXcdlnit t'or 
nine yoayo* the trsai^orlpt <^ hie tootiaony* In 00 itkjt sm 1% re^ 
XfttOE to Mo Huaswor na to who «mploy»sd hin* htiia l»oott **a03r3?«j©t®ji* 
hy thM trlAX ooart sinoe the reoord was flXo# in thlie oetcrt* Xt 
seoBis likoXy that ^tmxi Bonotas t^tifl«<d ho wm we^ogred hy ''SolXua 
&3M Sis^aon* ho noattt thnt ho wao originally «B^«9«d hy then* no 
it l8 donoftdo^ that tho rf»e«4irox' hao in ohf^rg^ «f thx: ^uiX'ding at 
Vbm tiim of the O0ield«nt tmA the 4 janitor of tho pvonlooe ^rottXei h« on 
ei^loy«s« of the r«o«lT«r. .'VppoXlant •nhowter T. » I^tIo* I?ffleeiirs:t,* 
i^teito In hl» ■bTi«f that hOt n» vmmtmxg operat^rt ths 'feniX4i«« 

.-J ij>:......v iiO* fin»fttffc«it#ia ir^w «»au««1t»i( «1 fee**!"** 

.: : ..:--;■:: -A...; ; ; ■■ >t^>,'- '^^ .-.-...ft,,> -t-'^^© IjdXf,; 

«i.;iS ^SBSfiSS^ i^ hS>^£i^-i ■*-'■"" ^- ••' ^- "*" "•■'•■'■ ■•„-:.vw.'....T /...«,. 

ttewigfe Ills »«I««1MI» *lM«» S«il«a M^ JaJmsoa mowd f « » fin^isag 
la IMlr f«T«i «t thM aaaelusian aT iOftlatUt'fe «nd«4»««, liiscr® 
w«i« siflt a s^iatillc «f evide.xio« ti» siw«r tJoa* ttoey w«r® o«»iae«t«< 

op«r«).%e43» aisnag«dli e^p^rrlaetf «r Bslnti&infid tl^ imildliiii: k»0vm as 
4833 :<%»t Mit-^leim w.'^tr«et» in hla iadi visual sai^JMii^* On iha o«>»« 
trarjry tla# reaord daaoIuslTely showe fcliat the buildiag m>M 0|>era$«d 
V '^il^t «^» rdoelTV*** Tli« followlag I0 th« AreuMint ia support of 
tlvis d4^6«s.^iU«M»ii ^Tbttr* no eTld«ad« that OlMMit«3r B« l^Yls* 
iaaiTldusuUx or la a^ jp'lir&t«^ ea^«oity« «wa<»d» «naais«d» 9oett«»e«N&f 
eupsjrrised or «s»txolletl %kM jKr«isift«e* Bm «ri^oim9 1» tiiirtcdtly oaii 
09nQlu»lTaXy to %h& @oatxajry« ^ * * 'ixma^ fclus '^ tiimlft tiea it ft^p«fliJMi 

is the aiT«uit Oourt 0f CO(»k Couaty* aiid. tlimt* a« mtoli rec@iTer» ^ 

urns la 9Q«ft«i«iiiQ» 0f t h« ppmii9«i» )m&%m «ua 43M '"»68t lladismi t'^tX'tMS^ 
•.t ttes tim» «f plaintiff** Injur j» '>«ali l« th© «jifelre prf^of 

<S«ss«yl jjitiv* ©f i)«iTla* T«lstion to the pyoiJ^rty* fiii» suit is ai^t 
<!!^<^ IE-.J'^ ftgz^inet t1a» r«<s<?iTt3^Mp a^tat®* 07 a^%iei»t ch»£t«ix' B* 
'■■>ftvla» §.f„„.r«ogi y<ij f» CJaesttr n« !!5a?8^s iiic:»ivl(9ttally w%f.a MBdt? a psaarty 
rfef«j-t4aa%« tl&a t*3?» •rcsesiveT* «ft«!y Ms imtm "batjag s ja»r» laattear 
ef dweoriptisa* t?^® 3tt®e@ ualfor«JL^ %^14 th&t » 'titlet appended to 
ihm nmin ®f ft .party t9 « law »uit» ■wltlMmt the ac»tK-)i«»0iing wjsnrd *a»» 
ie enly gaB<ir||^,^lg^ jgfya fn g j^ f » «nd d06«> not a&ke thft «»« 00 A^mrt^mA 
a pnjrty te the adtioa In hie (»ffloi«l aap&,oity* 'Bm &ttlt 1» «a:!4J9>»t 
8i»ob m j^surty ae «a ttttSirldttal. * * * la ttm lastsixit ap^xsisJL Ja.i'lis 
wtt» not 8««i^^ «*; r«e«lT®r tiut r«.th«y as ^a ia<Slvi^«»l wi^heut en'i«i«4. 

a'Stta<sx;siKO*;- ■ ntmr \mi.i i^&is «<tete l»^^ »tmi^hJpr-':: 1« ■> ■ .. » t-iing %Mf 

^ :i|«Jt«5S«» «&■»##«**« fiMa-Wirl-?' ,;.f ' r jBl «f»«P 

or repyefiestatlve ea^wmlit^* 'H» ^«f«a4Ne4 his ri^htie a© an iadi'rt.- 

ly fTQ« 1;h« apj?«3rant ladivldaiil liability ia^aed 'fey tim ivi^ggrnkt 

'b«l«rtr* * » ■«■ Only & r«>T«s>iiii3. 9f thi« judps^stt ««» jap«T«nt » l«Ty 
iii.p«ii tm pv&-p@Tisiy 0f <::h«i«lMiar lu v^vls* His tjoly p«as«M8.l3si ef the 
j^raKia«s tms %lmi of s^rrKats* (KKitlo^M ^y kis la his eap.^ity &s 
3r®eielT«r» Th©r«f»jp»» ^«y« eim ts* o® iM!!y»«ml llalstlitiy*'' Ttoa in- 
»t«at aantentioa ts pXsUUal^' a2& &f t«xtli«a#i;t» mk! it in ftaws«aiRt 
«ttrp]rl«iji^ &)mt this appellaai* an off lel»X oi th« 90urt« in ri«« 
of Ms Attitud« in t^ trial court » would raii»« lt« flio oonplaiai 
Joins tm o»« of tla* jpi%rti«e dofeadimt '*Ch«at«sr B* 5^Krlo» EeeoiTor** 
(uad ohsTjg«ft that s^oh <3ttf eudUmt «ail others wojre "op^-^ratlng'y am«a|^il4Si 
t^u|»«rrl»i:a{g Ka§ nsdntalalsi^ thio l^uildia^ la queeticm* ^im jsmesijoaA 
wa^ia diT<Jct«d t© *-:5h««t«» ■'mTiB* Kcocl't^y," and t^ retttra of tho 
mhstitt sthQym i^h^i the »rit m» &«rr«d oa aof&n«l«^t ^Chester ]?Avi« 
R«o«dY8r.* Appellant*© <)oua0el e^itord^d tho a|»p««r»neo of "•ChfeBtes' 
'■&Tia> -^■■^o<#lir«r#* "'Oheot^r mTia* PeosiTor* imtmored tho c«iaplalat» 
t nimh&t of iBOtlans tvoro stodo la lasehalf tKf '^aheotoY' H« J^aTlot Bo* 
estiTwr.* Ordeia wero enter«4 apoa aotlon of ■'aheat^r B. « T^tIo* 
BeotilTor." Motloas to tln4 A^frnx^trnt "Chsst^r H« .mTiOj :t^»«iT<j»iff» 
»<9ts ^illty «<»ro j^sido '^y M« aoiao&oX* ^eithat by i^^lea* aatloa* nax 
su^^efeioa* duarlng tlMft proo«i«41a||e la tho trial omirt* did tho fo" 
o^lTOX rtdao tho ^almt ho am ut^&* Tho in^taaat oppo^ wes t&koa 
liy '^Ch'satex !■". • .i^aTlo,, iu^oei-roy** .'Vpjp©.lljaat has oit#c ©ertais a&swo 
to th« ^ffoat that th«* additlora of th« word '<Keo«lY03r,*' 'withimt tho 
ooxii'ieotiag ?*«rd "aat" la woroly :SoioyJ:ltio^,j>®£«8^a*» ^^^ ^^t®® J**^ 
Toyiai; in q«««(tl«ai the x-ifliita ear liaMlitioe of & x^c«iTer in Mo 
•ffioinl oapaelty* '?h«xa are* of aours®, sojsos to tie osntraryt 
So# 5^ C, J« 3S8# .vonoi als*!, .J.l^gXe Y« Haar fti,.at JA-6 11X» App« 4^, 
«*»iffflia It wiB heli that "Cfhnrleo H^aro-tin, &h .%v«s>ivor," -^ma .^se^ly 

■$^m!»tm^»% ^^ ysf ^^"te^pKi ^iJ,k4MU Satmkk^Xhtu tmnmm» «^/<« m^^l xt 
taJMisim^':^ '^''■■' -'.tm ^Sj^^ *^tti»i$ SMiM «j.U aX »^itiJt.$$M aM 1» 

o:/e ,f€.t-2/;'^'^^o 

BftltfMrfv* JJ'»rfJ .. tJj.-it.mU 

a laetter dftfeeriptioa of %hm T«nX defendnmt tTma "Cajsrlae H*'.»r»tlat 
S«9ftiv«3rt* »«<* tJ3}*.t 1% «lid ao't ¥ylaf lat« the QcMit^ a o«raf jmrty* 
Hoisorvr* it i» s^ mtfxioi^nt im»w«jr to tlm inet^jst oositeatiai to 
s&y Ifeat Ul tKl« a«it it i» cl«saT ttoisht ^uriag tli« e«ti» ^roGdM- 
inipB in tlm l9»<ir eamrt a,pp«Xlaa6 'X:li@8toff H« I^irint ls«^ir«rf"' 
t7«ftt«4 thcaetioa m 000 ajg«ilai»t Ma in his efn oitJL 0js>|>a«lt3r as 
a roar-iver la oli»a>i;e of &h« pre«L»i«« Hijs 9t«K«»ai o«n|«»iti«»i t^it^ 
1m <i«ifmBd94 tlM&etiiA «ealait hia *m» sa iadlTldttia* is a@t oaly 
oea^letaXy wu»w«r«4 "by tlMt r<^e«rdt Isut it iai sithjoot to tisks eriti* 
toiit» that It is asdtteimrily )i«s»d vtpon the timasj th&t the reoeivtir 
esnottflisitffd kis TsaX d«£oi!ift« ia the trial oairt« tt Us ^mfmaMHi 
ttm imit ae sua ladiYi^»«9t3.« as ^ ttftw oiai»»» ^)^ #id hs off sir evl* 
4#ao@ on laehalf of **Cli«st«]r B* I^viSf Rmotiirvr 9** t9 &tiow that th«»fft 
mtm Hd a«c2li0nao« ia ths wmmtptmsnt or oji«rici.tii8i of tim 'buildiag? 
Tho trsa^^ript of t}u» y«»oo!r<$ ooataias th« arpmcaftt of th«T $2«<iT«x*s 
ta.t'^o.riasjr st th» eoaola«i«a of tho e7l<S(^'no«» 'dwshistrm in Ms Iob^: ?^rga* 
ts«at do«« ho UMko or oafrgost the poiat he a<wr ttrpis« Xa<l««$d> tho 
aurpmwnt ia Va«*<9 ai^oa tho o^t^toi^tioa that tho r^ftemkwv was fiio 
Xiiai!!l.or4 of tho pr^sMieoef a»d tho poiat ma<so ic&& that th« r ec^fiiror 
warn net gitiity of a^jr of the ohia.i*f«a of aog^^ioaoo* Ton if thojro 
wore miy aorit ia tho e«Bt«atiaa that tho use of tho «for^ "Beoeivcr" 
without tho eoririootlats word *'a8'* did aot laoke Cheestor K* x-civis a 
par^ to Iho Skotiea ia hi» off ioisd ottpaoityt tho r@<$i^iT»r hasa iwaiTOd 
tho p^iat hy hie o^aduet* It is only fair to ii3m r#o<;!ivor to smy 
thftt th# r«9:ord ohoirs that ho dof«Bkiod tho suit ia tho trial »ourt 
as the roaeivor of tho prowioosi* As wo havo hiercitoforo ^ta^^t 
tho ia»t«%at oaat«ati<m is laa «f torthou^t* 

Affollioite eeat«Ei'd that plalatiff di^ aot cae«roi»@ dao CNuro 
for hor onai mtmliv aad that hor iajariee rostatsd fr«s her ooatri^a- 
toiry aogXii^aoo* Tho trial ^<mri fmai<$ Ap'^laat this aoata^tioM* laad 

tuM^^mM «*it%mg&^ m^ itm^mt^-^h turn, m^ %% mUiitmml^ 'mi$94 m 

"k^^iKi'sii 'if>xM.m ^^ »)it.i:m% ioAi %»9S» «ti $X Horn »M» nJk $mii i»4i 

»«iU smiS4mi&\&«s 4m^-ii^%^.j4is: •)b»%j^«i% 9^ 'to '^'%ji»i/^ nt t^-^ a 

» iiS?rm. *>i %^midp .-.^Mtsa ^-mn &i» "^mf^ i»m« it0^t90mm» »iU atmdili^ 
turn 9S -m^i'jti&m ««*» et %Mt %ii».* m<. iii y^i #ia*« udi 

we mp-pt9f9 9t the fladiai?* 

ntiglim^aieii finds mij^pett ia the «fid«aase nor is my »f ttew fiRwded 
great langth* tha t5vi«?®B«e ?md 6li« !«» "b^n-rtaj^ u:^«a saote of tt»» 

tha txlal dourt in el«toi4iAg ihtt o«.eei 

^^'^ft Omxrti QQn%lieimn» after plalntiiT amtsludt^^d lUEtr 
eas«t £ did aot tJaXiik a rexy atroog eae^ v>as saad« out* > pria» 
fftidtie e>iiBet Qf a<ntr8«» i^i^ nadu 0at» tmt 1 r^^tl^r thmtght tito 
0M« %«!ak« tittt tSiai vieur of ala« h£i» betm oJbanged lijr tlsa i«i«ntt8a«s 
of tlMt plfilatlff «Jad %gr th« <l«feaidaat* 1 UtliUc tiud Ia»t wlta«fit>f 
Hjrs* ^ilstmt defeii4«»t*« ««» «ita«ffi»a «»4« ottt a ^rt«mt Wktm f«r 
the |)Ialnt)lff* 

'^Afii^A fr«ni th« (iiMstion ef th« stxneturi^ d«fe«t« and tli« 
Ti^Xation of th« ds'^lnazu(«» «4iiah un^diflitf^^ljr tMa doe^f 1»e<i»tDgve «&» 
far as tlw «talraa8e» ttuit are not e-HoXosftdt tii^ «]r4ii3^iao« mn^iaimu 
two )i«ii4 yallttf anid I do aet tMok "ssro «ea su^eUtut« a a«m»X poet 
f ttr a imn& 2%ii* But «T«a if tliat wor@ to Ira reeup<3«^ as tlw t«ir» 
idaal p^X'ii«Ri of %h» otairw«y» tJi^r^ ie not anar rtta««n «tQr» «i1^ « 
stairway «<mciti'ucit«<i a« tlslo flBto ist partiouXarly a haa^ 7&i3. «i 
the lef t» nhmXd end tlurO'!^ at«|w «^wv« tho ground* Bat a^id*.^ from. 
t)iat» M;rfii» ^iifign toetifiod* sM tho blae print Introcfue^!^ hy th« 
illef(?tt#sat iXlutstratcs It perf <»otl3r woll» tli;-,t the' n«mnl po«t aauto 
a Kliaaow aQToee tho thlr<! stop th«r«» mxxiSi ahe aald* la a^Sdltloa to 
thatt th0 light etowt h«l.«v v«b6 In r^ry p^ar o«ct.dtltif»i> 

**1S«W9 horo la a brilX41n« that was eomstruiotm!! with what i» 
a father <i&af«yott» jitaireaaa. ?irssiitln^' Jmet hea&UM'i? it i« s. eomm'n 
a«tho^ of o<gn»^truotlOiaf ao particular eowaon Xa» i^ty v^e 9^m^ to 
the pl'>^.;:.ntii'f hy th« d^f^oiilaat to ohKOgo the oonetruotloa* it ime 
mor@ iaitgeroue tbmk th« oiMinaa:^ atifalght otairo-i^e^os ; hut appar^'ntly* 
the rxeMt^ot s^alt thoro ou^t to ho a lli<h& that w'ouX<i .throw a 
r»fleotl.aa ^irtsatXf nma 'th<j thr^e or four ygin&iag, tJroaila* aa« ao 
ho pxQvi^fii for a lii^t up ahOTo aod in position aHwet stonth of 
th«» n«w@l post 00 that «hat light t@9ul<J be throtm fran th^re' -#'otacl 
l9« tliroim dlr^otly upon this wliKUlng portitm oi: tho fttalr%«<y« But* 
for sons nstaeoia or othor» there «»&s a oiaango 8tad«» antf no light 
1« pvLt iA th»ro la th« s»o«ji«t tlu&t Is providod f«r Itt an<li ^^hioh 
i» to ho soaio four or flYO foot eoutleNotit oi' Ihsi pXaee %h«r«! It is 
proritfod fort and .<^t isvmh ^a mkgX« that It* «rmi If tho H^t 1» 
&tTfmg: en^ttg^h to up the etalri^'ayt it '.?ma<^ throw a shatfow on 
on«» t'-iO 07 thr«e oi th^so £itftpe» hee^uao tho li^it Is pttt at an 
nni^o vOs^re ths usitrol post slmts it of ft and your ■Mitmrn^m test!* 
fiod that thoro was s«Mth a shadow* 

■^Mr* Mhannor (attomoy foaf app«il»nts)i fhadow on tho 
fourth Btopf slis sftltfo 

*9h« court t Yott* And thnro nsras oth«r tostlsoMQr of that 

kla<S h«x«. If %HtsT«i in a llffi^tt now timt ni^^t h# v&rmu than n« 

li^^t at «tlle )s&^lag that shotdow at that part inhere It winds "t^wiA 
the n«w«l post« 

'■S:i^ >•>. 'rot 
- • ■■■ 'K^lm, 

tmitkhm!'. »ii 

X «jaw «*^«i# 


3 T^:?©" swdRC** 

**I tMnItt t«Ueiii£ all tk» c^videite* i^im^theT* %}m fmnzt 
id a» prot«o%i«ni «n ih* rt^t heUEMt »ld« eit all at£er tii&a i%i« 
plmmd that it «iouXd tiavtt ^tmstn otmXunXng to Bsae^^oao^' usia^ ilw 

g^-tusm, uad the: ttmiMfi i» foj" th« plalattff , flft««a iundrod 

'-.f t«r a ensuraftCL ttat^nlitHUwi of tlMt v vid«iMi« cmd Um 1«» 
b«»iktlH^ tap«tt itt we» ftttd euri^^lwtt in aeaord with tbe eenelusiora* 
•f tlM tirtaX o<mn* VteS»T %h« r-rL<i<»i«« »Madl tlw law a findiag f»» 

App«lliait "ChesiMP H. l.wrl«t nee^-lvext* wool«f not Imire te@n Justi* 

rh» contwaUoo ©JT "clieet** »« imrtmt Jte8©iir»r,« that in 
aiQr tnmt th® Judgaent ahoulcl h&T^ %*tm tK^laet Ms la Mk offi- 
eiAl eAj»A«lty» t« b« pal4 ooOLj »ttt of the fund of pr«p«rfey v^Iiioli *^ 

th« emxt KppQintiMg Ma bas iil««e4 in HI0 jf9ma9»almk ms uad@r 
Me eoBfcroS.* is; a a^rltm^i^nu) «MI« 

ftpp«!!d foir iifBKio«mi|4iAao« «fit^33k the lurevijeione of th« uois^ i'rei«:ti«t« 
$M% visXe-^iag to &9POR3.0* 'fim aiotlQa win be 4o&l«di* 

Tho judfluttit of th« Cirotiit oourt of Cook eoimtj in i* 
fa.r A» it smlatofi to d^^f^m^oto M^iwej a. :^olIon oo^ Fre^ a* J4^to»<m« 
eOpoxtttOTOt (Solsig bnolttoi^e tmd^sr tho fim a&im m&A e tylo of Solian ik 
J^otoeen* i« rovorooH* Tho ^u^$pum% in eo far s^ia it r«l»t«8 to 
tf«f«!!a«ent 'H^liootor It« Stavlat H^oeiror*'* i» rev^x-ood* tm4 ttm oawBO 
i« r«aMuid«4 witli «i««otlflm to tl» trlol ooiart to ontor a jiid^pm* 
in t^ omi of tlffSOO la Smvt of plaintiff aad fii@iiA»t d«f<m^lsaet 
C)9M»%tor ru t%,Yle* HB Fe9«iv«>r» the Judgnmit to 1m» pci d ont of tho 
fmt4B in th« luu;d0 of Bai4 rooolvor in 4tt0 eoorso of &flBinietx«ti«} of the 
xeoeirerohip. B«f07e entering JndgMoat t^ trl&l oourt will A lam 
jiloimtiff to ononA bov yloodiagn &9 tluit ^il^e9eT03^ tb« wor<ls 
•ciiootor »• unviot Boo«4wr»« ^jiooy in Jior i(l«a«ain«» tUoy «ili ^e 

■«!i»'S jutt.lti'^.f/ • '■ -^ *-OJ5»6ly« wife' 

..... *-«J' ? 


'^m&Q milium:- ^s^m rm vT'm stast.: A^n sttls of 

si»« m t-itsoo xa j^ator «f ^^ami& Mai AOAimf 

pAiii OUT CBT iijjiejfc u liAidf^.. or o.aii ? i^^'^mrm la 

SalliTfust P* )9r«» woA Frlcat^t J«t ttooftttr* 


^^vmri^mn m ^nim^ -^n ^m wm t T^ - «9aimm ftwunstfft 

♦i{i.f»i«»y **X. n^m>tx*^ htm .1- .i«fe«TUXB*J 


COlSiTT OF COCK, «te.» 

0? CfX)K COMTT^ 

:?,;!x«.t. 1 290I.A. 602^ 

TMa npfpftfCL 1»y defendnat Is frott a Judpt«nt of |3»SO0 
ia fftTor of plain tiff » «itsre4 upcm tlie vwrdiet of a jwry la 
oa aetlQEt of trospAoe* 

^X&iBtiff filed & BoUcm in tMa oourt to dieMos tlMi 
ttvpuJL upon the iround tlmt this oourt had loot Jux-iodletioaa 
lM0?ittso *d«f«ndaat fs^llod to f iXo a notio« of appool with ma 
Oird^x* of ii!lIoisrfmo« eisuloroed th«>reen iind serro oaaao «n plaintiff 
wltMa on* J9tkr aftor tlie m,tTj of th« Judgmimt eoaplainod oft" 
ia Ylol%ti<« of the CiTil i^raotioe /«te The jud^pnent in the 
o&ao weio entered «b #.pril 5f 103S* On April 3t 1V56* defaaSont 
filed ita petition f07 lesiTo to &pp>eal in ihitt eeurt* On \pril 
19t 1936» tOLaintiff '^a» duly s@rr«d with a c^py of notiee of 
appeal with the ord«st> of cdlo«maoe iadorised thert^oa* In at^port 
of him laotiian to disaise* {^.^iatiff oenteads that the s^rvias of 
the notion of appeal ^ith the ordey of allowaaoo iadomed thcreoa 
fthoald have he«»a had upon plaintiff within g»9 yei^r fn» the 
entry of W»» ludgsmnt and that th«r«fore this ooart* titi^er the 
• tAtate* has losst Jariediotion of the c&ttse* Th® motion to 
disaioit wiU h« denied* (See J^ule 2« of the l^aleo of i»r»iGti©o 
of the t:mvr*9^- eoart* and Kula 19 of the ^0.99 of Prmtioe of 
thin oourt*) 

,04 *a M/*xxir** 

■^ ■> -••■ 

lia u ti:^ ( ^^^^i^. 

Tli^nl^Xq n» wnsffi »▼?.:««( ^js# mirxi^ fc^sictiK* ••ci«w»XX«! t« ir^frnt 

JBK»»«MiJ fclMrs»,%ii4; a5y:iR-.iC*I,.., i*;, ivU-i« .',t(M| 9JHt 

motitj^^ 10 MX&rr «tft tt t« »X»*? w»e) •(M»iif*t> swf XlJhf mXk»1& 
■ 1» #»lt««t« !• MiMt «llt ^ 9X •Iw'^ Mia «^iuNid sflwc^pa mU lob 

PXiOatiff *B 4ieolarntlQii alXefeft* in. «isft»tMSllt UMil ft* 
fiT« y^aars n«xt |^««edla^ th« otmaeiwiettttnt of tUs »itlt plainibiff 
•mcd and was |Hi«««»»«d ef d&rtaiiit reitl property eituatisd is ths 
aowity of Cook and »tat«! of llllnoia ide^cx-ibin^ the maas) uuS 
%Taja entitled to th« andlKtur'beid oooupaoey of tke Baao; tJjat tfeo 
property wan iwprered with a certain dw*illla,s:» ohl^leen houaat 
eoal nim^ and euttjtiildinffo i th^t th« dwelling *ms oooi^iad ly 
plaintiff I tfeat a portion of tlw property tt^o |^rd«m land, oiatl> 
rsted Gn^ uoed for gronsflng- oropn thero^Koi tlmt d«f«*nd«mt» tjy its 
oeunty d«neaie»lon«r«t «T«ot«d ftnd Bointained upon a largo tract 
of neigljberlne land woot of plaintiff's prewlBOB, a largo public 
inatitutlon, leao^ »a tho Oak ^9a«a4t- Infirmary, or Poor Fora, «hor« 
it h^d ereoted a heno for al»o«it 6»000 imaatos and certain at ton- 
dents ?5Bd eiaployoes Of defendant # which infl«aary ms pluB*«d ana 
ooworod throu«^out th® bulldia«s with all aodern plurablng and 
isaaltary iii^roT«aeato» and defendant Balntalnod there lar«9 
laundrlos* «ito«» axid created a largo veluno of «owag« of a nexlotun* 
otinkingt poioenous and off«aialv« kind, ^f^iloh defendant neceoRarHy 
flowod and om^otod away frora the infim^ry and dlisposod of in tho 
dlrf^otiea of and wp«n tho pr«»«L8ee nrereaaldt and dofmidaat oon- 
tiituou@lj for f iTO yoaw prior to tho osesBenooutent of thr» antloa 
ftHOfwed Ite e»id noxloue* eto.t »s«wa«« to flow upon plaintiff's 
yroMBOiif that la doln^ ao d«f»mdant has txe^paaood upon plain- 
tiff's prenl@«» and approprlatod and dameod tl» aato for a pubUe 
pnrpooo, vdthout tho oonsont ©f plaintiff » wimoHt paying aiy 
G«^p«nsatiaa wh-^t^r^r thor«for» and wntrsry to the ri^^^ts of 
plaintiff in tho pr^aiooa guferantoed hy the Constitution of tho 
state of IllinolB .sfhloh prorldoe that his property should not he 
tafcon or daaa«so<^ *"<"? pulalio purposes without just cc«q?<sna.'itl«mi 
that plaintiff resided cm his prisviaea «kad ^iKHonod and oultlTiitod 
the laada there » tl»3.t hy aoaas of sueh disposition of sewago 

aisfti*!., c-9 $iit9mmmam9 titt »fRl^»»9« iM»a mtmmx mrXt 

art*? isi i»tk«/iiiiiJtfs -^iRaiisrKt- Xa«ra aii8*t«» ^ ftMiMii«»q tt«w %mm htumm 

■ ''listHins^ tux* bMi« !«•» 

^miJi:*»mi»*B^i» ^m»t ma^-t^- «t«»tt«i|%ER{ nlli^^ti 'set b9iis,Mm0ii. %»■ aaa&ei.i 

xxpm plaijatlff «e prmims "by defmaaat th«sy "bsoaiie «i«»lly unfit 

tor re»ld«nc« j«xyp««©B, aaS jjl&iatlff m» greatly lnooav«ml®!ie»<l» 

ttimoyftd and rimdaxed sick «a^ disordered %y r®a«<m of e «rt6itt 

etAaehee srlaias from %im esvaga, the trnwiaauta on pXaintUf^a 

pr«nl««s ^or« rendt^red df little or ao tttso slid Taluet tb& garden 

laadBt tqr aca-as at isaid dl»p«>oition of sewage thftrOf tt*&asa» poletsittd 

end imflt for g&rdaa purposes eaxA ttui er«p« tiMtre gsrowlag ^«r« eoilttd 

with B«w«&|^ and nBn(3«r«9d uoiit for us«i that plaintiff hae !}«<»& thure* 

tx depriTGd of lUiiie full u&a of saitf prf^Baisest h&ii lost great ^adnn »ni 

proflto which he 9ther^«»e would hcvro ho4* end ha» \»o«a i^e^ittXy in** 

ooaT«nl«uoed and aimeyed iu the ooctq;>&tioa of his dvellin4'» whioh be* 

Gtmt permeated with lingering o<loro mni stinks frcn mdL6 uemkff& and 

he mia therthgr deprlT@d of the herUthful use and enjoyn^nt of the 

pr«iad0e!B ae 9. beete* to the daaaai^ of plaintiff in the tma of $10»000« 

t^^n^aatt filed a plea of not guilty aM a further plea that tlw 

aesae sraatore of plaiaUff iapl«sRd«d <!»fend«nt» in th» Clrotdt 

court of aoejt ooxmty io the yttiX 1915 1 ia a oertata plea of tyeepaes 

on the oatie for ttxkitxg &ad using the very asm* Itmd in th& d olaratloa 

Bmatione^t aud chfit euoh prooeediitga ^snsre thereupon l^>d in that oaeo 

that on April lOt 1&20* hy the consideraticm &ti.6 ^udgaent of the eaid 

eourt* Bald aiesne j^^jiittore &£ j^il&intiff rooovered os^not {defendant 

the texm of tl3»S00 dfiumgeot cund coets "^^lereof th@ a<gf«endant '>«»» oon- 

Tlcted» f;.» by the reoord thereof atill romaining iu the eajse oeurt 

Bore fully v.^^&T»i wMoh bb14 Judjpsent still r^^malne in full ioroe* 

And this d«f«sndi»at ie ready to Terify by th«> eald record J "therefore 

it pxisys Judipsenl if the jplnintiff ought to imr^ hiiis afore&jaici aotien* 


Plaintiff offeree! PTl^fenco in support of hie dr-olaratlen» 

end d^'fsadjmt eff«rc<; «»TliSenoe In Its defense. 

Defmdant rHisoo flT© lone in eupport of its oantea- 

<^m--.}!x>^ ms^^t^4 ^n%^i mmi^in "tx> mUimt&^i^ hUm •%» <mmm ^ %^ml 
...r^^^^ .'9K« «4«(« ton t%»t»**^« 

>i.r l.\^ 

tion thffit the Jvu^^oat slwttl« %&■ reT<sr»«<l. la our Ti«i»' «t tMa 

appeal It Is ttaly ncoeeeary to ocan&idwr t^o» t1x*« 

"14) tlttkt apfxellen is not «ntltl*?d to reeer«r 1i«o&«««t 
»litoe h« took euOieotttcat to the eratabllf^hmeat at th« s««ia^ 
Bystea» It 1b preBu««(S tJif t tim Som&r ewaax reooToretS f»r ansy 
injury donof lat^ic!! that the app>9ll««! paid Xe»» lor th@ laiid cm 

«o«oi»it thereof • 

*(B) Thf!.t th© court err©# la not p^rmkttiskE ©▼ld«a<i# 
of a recorery toy the former fym\<sxi »lnoe exwh reo every Is a 
toar to the ^fvolXoo • ** 

Upofl th«» trial of th« onueo* defondeuat oft^re^ to proro 
t'im.% in ft prior motion "by Frod ':• Ho2a a^^ilnot tho 'et«tty «f Cook* 
in tho ymv 19X59 Holm* «^ f orator Ofimer of plj^izitirf*^ l«md» fll«<3 
eetso ^o* B<>^3<| in ttM Ciy«iiit eourt of Cook ooimtyt t^hleh w :;>.&$ && 
jnotlott of tif«B|»&8s floi th« oaso for takln<?» uetog and dams^glng hi« 
lmn^» whloh IneXuaedl tlw laad i»YOlTo4 In tho In^t^jat prooeecEtng 
and <:^ oeorllwd in plfd.nti*f*B deoljaar^itian) thtit Judgiaont was eatorod 
In the oatt@^ mt4 Hola roooTer««d t^l3«5<X) fron tho Cotmty of uook a« 
d«Ra^R to Ms Isniffs effi>ttBod iBfy defendant* » apjkropriatKm of t^ 
aeoso* Thl» erl(9oaoo wn» of fared In Bupp«rt ^f dafoud^mt*^ sp««tial 
plaa* Fl&intiff advlttod the faote e^tatod in tho off<»y and stipu* 
latad that th» land in tho Inst nt oitlt le j^strt of the lant! InvolTdd 
In tho d«»olaifnti^n in tho ^ 3M oaae* but laado a gttiiEi ral objftotlen t« 
tho adtelaaion of tho offered ^vidnnoo* 'shleh tho trial oourt ou!»* 
talnad* Ti» offored erl^eooo wae material and otnspetont and thA 
oourt orrod in r«jfu«lnff to es.^mi% itt as the rooerery hy ths fonao» 
ovim«r lo a "bar to the Instttnt stilt* 

th« «n.n« isltuct'tlon 'w^d prH»«nt in ihs> r no^nt 9nm of |io ^ 
▼ • 'bounty of Cool;: > 383 111* App# W0» deolded hy this divl»loa ©f 
the ooiirty and a stat««»Bnt of tho plendlnga and the hicitory of tlw 
original suit of Holai ▼• ^oun ty of Oook (as 111* App« 1) ai^oaxv 
la our opinion. In tho sa»» hsfore uo (a83 111* i^pp* 1*0) MelM 
oonteadod that th« formwr reoorary admins t tho (bounty waa not a Wv 
to hlexwooyery ffor an alloflsd o«^oond tvoayaas* Aftor rarlowlttg 

.»!▼ 'ssfs? ul 

h^.V.'i ??>•• t;;ut::ij:^ lo lorn?© •:i';ihi!,©1 a ,ia;Ir>'" , :; iut»x tsi^. £\X 

^'-"r'TlOT&l html (si^ ^^hstiaai d^iM^-f tt*tmX 
?%iy: »ri^ ffll haul ' -us Si^^i, 

JUlftll (09X *««^V mill $«£j «» vv»,«^.>^^ 8MI«t» f»i$ 8l *«»J:i!Jb|» icu« ei 

th« iRW "boarlag ttpaa Uiat contoati^nt «• held that in aji aotlaa 
agalnat the C<!?uaty Tox dasfciges to plaintiff's laad hy fl«w of 
aewa^ froa the Couaty liaflimary th/oug^ pi^lntiff ♦» tllini; 
s^atem* it apiiwariag that plaiatiff Ited reoerereidi I18»500 fartPii 
th» Couaty in a, aiallsx euit for identical d£uaag®8 BOTurai y«/^Ri 
Ta 'for«» such px-evious recorsry waa a fear to fuj-ther reccYcry lay 
plaiatiri't and that the aeetion of th» Illinois Constitution 
giving the rij^t of rooorery for private property t^icen or 
6smH.e&6 for public uce eon template e only axio reoorery for all 
past* pre&snt and futiure daaajgos* ?he a^JSie ^ttomeye rejpresdnto^ 
Hola in the original oaeo and the second ceiset and they also 
repr«3ftnt plaintiff in the laBt^mt proaeeding end represontod tho 
plsiinttff in the aa^® of Peter. • ■.•»i„feh v# County of Sookf , 283 Xll* 
App« 646 (Al}8t«)* <?«hioh aufbaequ«mtly cane before no for consid- 
eration. thlK last oaae iavolT*icJ a. purt of the aaae lfutid» ana 
tho declaration '*»a,s. BuTsstontifJLly tho sn^ms us the one in the 
original Ko^Li o&ae and the one in the t ^oond Itolp o&eso. In the 
SBdth oaae the County of Cook filed a jdLca oistttiag up the f omer 
judgment iseourad hy Holsa and aJLle^-lag tliat a portion or tho HoSjgb 
Innd heeamc vested in pl^Ujatiff (riuith) throttalh Meone oonvey^mco* 
m adhered to the oonolusiono wo had reached in the H ply case* 
But it wae aleo oonteaded 1^ Satth thiit the HoM aa&v? ai^t he 
dip.tin<iulshed fro» hl^ oaee upon the ground thne Holn ^us tho 
peraon who ensured the ox*iginal judgpont for the permanent injury 
and d<«mafe to hie land* In anewtiring tht; oant«3nti«i we zmJL6t 

"'^e fn^ll to U00 what difference that could aake* Holm*e 
reooT«?ry in th<a «%arlier case enooerpaeeied patst* present and future 
douetgeoto the lan'1 'bfi<in,vme of it0 pera&nent ijjjwy* '«^<i v^n^m the 
ownership of that portion of Holia*B land deocrlhod in the 
decliiration lit thle e?»us!«j Ij^naiaf* reoteti in plaintiff throui^ 
swsne oouTeyaneo» it was inpreisset:! vith tha ooutity's *rl^st to 
oontinu0 to flow the eurfaco of thesis prpudisee vlthout Bwking 
furths'-r oamp«nsfl.tion»« ( Miller v» Gaaitaapy Matrio tt supra 

C«42 111. asi].)" =—6.- 

wi _, -^titf mU bm - ^ mS>S^ ^-'^^ 

:^tvH f^S^ rti !'j®iis.®,'»x foasif dw aiasiii*rX»0r<» sift «tf 6«i^»/*fe.Ti »'a 

•.'0 0»t 


Hm oplalora 9f MX* JUQtiee SuHItsu la the e«osnd | i|^lg [ ca3«i 
etat^&t fully tlw X'i-^ to«iuri£ie upon th@ insteat quet^tic^ imw 
1>©f(ir«i us* Tha coatedtlon Qt def^oa^ant that th@ aarsaer ceosrerjT 
toy Holta is A tiay to thiB olaiK ^ pl»ia%i£t in tfcui io&t^iat «ias» 
1» sttetaindd* 

ka %ht arterial faets 1>dariaa: upon llw a^eaiiul j)il«« 
»• »daltt«d> th* jttdgBUMat «f th« CiroudLt o«art <rf aoek ooveiI^ 
id rcrr«ro«d* 

SuXIiraa* ?• J«« and yri&&a» «r«» eonotxr* 

, f\4.-;.Tfr "Vr 

* '"*< ">■» WW « * ' * '■•- - 






Appexiee. j 29 I. A, 6 S"" 


Plaintiff appeale from a decree of the Circuit court 
denying the prayer of her oomplaint that a certain corenaat 
not to sue given by her to defendant te set aside y and diemiBsiBg 
the coapl&lnt against defendant in bo far &.ii it seeks e^ultaTjle 

Tiie complRint c<msists of two ccnints. In the first 
plaintiff seeks to recover ^40,000 which she alleges she loaned 
to a syndicate, coBiposed of defendant and othar individuals » 
through false and fraudulent representations of defendant. In 
count two she seeks te set aside a covenant not to aue defeiidant, 
exf;cuted oy her aTaoiit t'J/o and one -half years after the loan was 
Bjade, whio/i ins^truiuent siie alleges va.3 procured from her T)y 
defendant through certain false and fraudulent repree-entatians 
ma.'ia by Mm to her. In defendant's answer he deales thot the 
fv^OjOOO was loaned to the sj^ndicate, denies making the alleged 
false and fraudulent repreaentationB, and pleads the coreneut not 
to ene as a "bpr to the action. An order was entered that the 
IsGUSs raised hy count two "be tried in advance of the cause of 
action set up in couno one. -fter a hearing lay the chancellor 




TflUOO TiirtjiiiD mnt j/ji-v-a 



,aOAA«31 .A JtOll 

J-Jti'i arid JEtl .a^maoo o-j.!- 'i:o ai >.':■■■ a^tr .> n x, ■■-.",: mo o oaT 
iSlssstlrlbnl t&ilio ban iafiba-ity. .... b..^,.^..:.^. , aisoxLrJsita £ o;* 

Xrf tad ao'il ba-xijooiq axiv/ aj^i^jsiXX^ sixa ia9auj'ii<tai duMv tttbsm 
arsBJ:;*Bic.0B9T<|»TC ;Jn9Xy&»sxl baa aeXjs'i itt.a;tr£ao it^i/otui^f ;f«rifemi'iob 


there was a finding that the equities, xmcler count two, were 

-slth (defendant and that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief 

ahe prayed* Plaintiff sta.tes that if the order appealed from is 

B-astsined the covenant not to sue would "be a "bar to the cause of 

action alleged in count one» 

The decree finds: 

"Second J That plaintii'f claims that on or aliout tha 
84th day of lecember, 1930, she loejaed to a certain group of 
persons or ayndioate, of which uefendaat wa.3 a member f the sum 
of Forty Thoussjid Dollars, and that on account of the transaction 
involving said loan she had a Gau»e of action, elaiia, or o'eiaand, 
Rgaicat defendant, for the enforoeiaent of which plaintiff 
threatened to institute legal prooeedinirs . 

"Third* That in settlement of said cause of action* 
claim or cieniands deisndent executed and delivered to plaintiff, 
and plaintiff accepted, a certain promiBsory note dated May 1, 
1933 » due one year after date, for the principal suai of Thirteen 
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, vith interest at the rste of fiT© 
and one-half per cent per armum, payahl© quai'teily * * *» Defend- 
ant also gave to plaintiff as collateral sscurity to said note a 
certificete for one hundred Ehtires of stock of the .-imerican Indus- 
trial Finance Corporation * * *., 

"Fourth: THRt in consideration of the said exeoutiOTi and 

delivery of said note hy defendant, plaintiff e;:ecuted and delivered 
to defendant a covenant not to sue in and hy v/hioh plaintiff? for 
herself, her heirs, legal representatives and assigns, covenanted, 
among other things, that neither she, nor them, nor either of 
them, vdll sue at law or in eatiity, or otherwise in any manner make, 
institute, present or prosecute any claim, demand, suit or action 
wiiatBoever against defendant, Ms legal representatives or p.sBigns, 
on account of all claias or demands arising out cf said transaction 
in .i^Lch plaintiff claims to have loaned Forty ThouBand to 
said syndicate, as hereinbefore in paragraph * Second* set forth} 
* ■» * 

•^Fifths "That plaintiff did not accept said promiBBory note 
of defaad&ait hereinheioru defccriued in paxo^graph 'Third' and the certificate for one hundred shares of the American Industrial 
''inauce Joiina'atioa, e.a collaterisl security to said pro£iii3sory 
note, or either of them, by or through, or hy reason of, false 
f£iC fraudulent repreeeutationo to plaintiff "by dcfeiidant* 

"Sixth: That the oaid covenant not to sue e^iecuted and 
delivered hy plaintiff to defendant, as hereinbefore in paragraph 
'Fourth' act forth, was noL. jjiven "oy piuintiix to defendant, or 
procured hy defendsjit from plaintiff, "by or throu^i, or by reason 
of, f:.'lse ixad. fraudulent representationa to iilaintixf by defendant** 

Prior to L'eoeinber, 1950, defendant, the holder of a eub- 

8t?Jitial amount of the stocks of Pettibone Ltulliken Company} Charles 

H. fUlb, president of that company; S. B» Iwywan, its Tioe-pressident 

loiisfi attJ- o? boliUn& ion l^'ild'aiBlq i^xrf^ bras ^j-tebna'ie.'j xWhr 

^0 y3.Ui-.5o axii 2 'i&o .::ije y oifs oo^ .ton ^iisnc'TOo Qxl;f b9al&4aupef, 

»9no ^jTiEtToo ill bagsXlB a»kio» 
i a&Mil 96»^»s»f» exiT 

tf^i^VB^iO^t^ Off* ^o ^fittfooiws jRC iadiJ bKB «stej8XXog; fenscjjoifr x^'^o''^ "^o 

i.bKs;M&b TO tSSlljuLo ,fSox^^o=i^, lo Sojjjao is 5<;irr aiir^ nsol btsot gnlvlovrtl IS o<, ^0 . ■ ijs iO in3faoX;fia?i ai ;>jBxn' ibtlxiT" 

tl "^^s?! b9*Bb s*on X"^ GijeSies « «&5t;*qaoo« ILtinljeXg bos 

eyt'l to ©tftyt ad: ylv tarjcjiloil bo-jbttuK b 

j6 aioa bias oi \;.ii'iUyi>u Iij'iv>jaXIoo aiv icj oi avsjj caX.-ci ifSis 

a&lsa'soq,toO ootmttlZ XjBitd' 

fes^STiXeb &IJB 6i©**foa::9 'ilJIjaif^Xq; »: .1 h^oc bxoa 'io X'^^^viXab 

'xoi i-Tt i:;t ni,''Xq[ iioxxii.' %■;<? fen^ itt $ii<;; v^v joi-^ oftvOi'isroo r :rafi&fi3l£^f) od- 

e fees'iirjxtovo o «B«3,ia4ajn bim asTij^^fi/saTEcja-x X.Bi:,»I ^s-xl^ii' tsri tlleeisd 

tSiUuB laaxiexa v;ita nl aaJr-BTTsrU-o -ro tV.tiwps ni xo waX ii? sira IX hr tBiQXii 

«aj!^la3J8 no asTiS-; . • ..; a'aveod^tj^fiw 

flolsojtsanjs'i* biisa "lo .: *!0 ^ . *ij.««:;:.> .> .i.i , xu i}iijtf&ea>^ oo 

neXiadio ^x;«AqiB0D najfiXXrfW a-xsoifl^j-^s^ lo 8S(9<»,ta «iS;;f lo *«j^»aKi XaX^a's^a 


aad the sop'-ln-'la w of pla int iff; Henry W, /jigsten» president cf 
Corey 3t©el Company} snA '^. C, Cook, vice-president of Central 
Twist CCBipany, iiad formed a syndicate for tlie purpose of obtaining 
the voting control of Pettibone Mullikcn Ccxapauy tlirough its ccRumon 
stoolc. Cook olaims th&t he Imd no interest in the syndicate, but 
the evtdsnce* inoeec, Lit ov.n teiitiiaony?* shows that lie h&d* The 
syndicate oontexaplated the exptuading of Ptt.ti'boue lluliiken Ccimpany 
"by taking; in Corey Steel CompfOiy, treotiag a eubaidiary plant of 
■pettibone Mulliken Gampfuiy at Houston, Taxaa , and, possibly, ta,king 
ovdr Morden Prog Mr Sv/itcii Compaiiy. layman rent to Ifev/ York City, 
in Hovember, 1930, for tha purpose of selling some cf the oommon 
stock of Pettibone Mulliken Compaxiy to Ma friendt, th© sytidicstsi 
howerer, to retain the right of voting the stocks Kis efforts Tiare 
unsuccessful and in the latter part of I/ecemtaer defendant arrived 
in ^eii York ;^jid had a oonfarenoe (frith Lyman, in whicsh the latter 
suggested that his mother-in-law, plainti-f , r^ho lived in Baltimore^ 
hs.d Money and *could "be contacted** Jors . Lywan, plaintiff's 
daughter, sent for her nsother and sYie arrived in U'ew York the sasae 
dsy. the daughtar told plaintiff th?.t defendant waa in Haw York 
and wgnte'l to borrow some money and that if she "jould afford to let 
Mai have the money, it would ae perfectly all right." Lyaau told 
her "that they wanted to borro-^v this money for this ayii'Jiaate and 
that Mr. laaaoa would sjcplaln." The next morning plaintiff, 
defendant and the Lyssna aiet at the Commodore hotel, defendant 'hsls 
introduced to plaintiff by JSji^ssHt and after a caafsrence betireen 
the parties in wMcsh j^yman told |jlaintlff he thought tliat it was all 
right for her to loan the syndioate the moaey, plaintiff returned 
to Baltimore, yfeere she obtained froai the Baltiaore & OMo Railroad 
Company a oheok for |40,CWX) payable to her order. She then went to 
Chloago, arriving there on December 24. She met her daughter at the 

XMS^xiaO to ^ffl<3i&J:ao-iiq*»oJtv « afoot) ♦©♦F fee* ^iTCKjaamoa letJR ^©■so^ 

IptiixijB^tfe 'io 3*joq;i;jA| acE* 'it>^ at-wjoi^tirca jb fceuxtoi baa irccwjQjjffl&O SsWjcT 

lfo&ma}& si^i' xSswo'afS \;iiB!i«oD nwiilXuSS 9mtixite^L 'to Ioi;rrK>» awijJOv oil* 

Jiid" t©#.3oibaxs 9d.i ill ■iAatsiisl oa bsui 9d i.»di sfaixlo 2I0GO .stooia 

sail' ,b&ii Qii iBii$ mosia ixacBdiaidi cvo 3M..«l>*»ife£ti "isaltsblva »rft 

«\;w.Lr: : ? asw £^«itKGut »t3"*»5fl»9 *i«^^«^" •■* ad's nsb-soM 'X.vo 

to^splbft^:. .. .jmqmi'J aaiilii/* »i«o«fi**»1 Tto a[oc»1a 

bos :a|4}«i&K%ii uMt lo'l TC^noia sM* weT:«|||r, of ^^ftaw -^arf^ ^jsiicf" -is.'-! 

t ' .:.>l(i gfiimCMB J^JOPIX «!:'• ■. ■ i.AiffJW ftlffGW fflOfljetsI ".•»:./ ^Sa'^J 

railroad station and then went to defendant* s office; where she 
met the latter and I^riBan* Frcm there; in company with Lyaan^ 
she went to Cook's office at the Central Trust & Savings Bankf 
where Lyman wrote on the baok of the check i "Pay to the order 
of W* C* Cook;" and plaintiff signed her name thereunder and gare 
the check to Cook* The latter then gave her 4»00C shares of stock 
of Pettibone Mulliken Company. "There was no note or memoranduai 
given for the |40p000." Out of the proceeds of the check Cook paid 
a note of /^gsten for SlO,000 and one of Bib for ^10,000, "both notes 
■belonging to Central Trust k Savings Bank, "and paid myself [Cook] 
the balance." ilaintiff testified that defendant took her to Cook 
and introduced her to him* Defendant testified that he did not go 
with plaintiff to the bank* and Cook corroborated his testimony in 
that regard. Cook testified that part of the stock he delivered to 
plaintiff belonged to Bib, part to i^gsten, "and part of it I had in 
my own box." 

Plaintiff contends that the #40p0O0 was obtained from her 
through false representations made to her by defendant and that 
the transaction constituted a loan to the syndicate, secured by tha 
stock given her by Cook* J)efendant denies making the alleged false 
representations and contends that the transaction constituted a eale 
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 yeiars after 
he received the check. Neither Bib nor Angsten testified. We do 
not deem it necessary to cite the evidence bearing upon the alleged 
false representations in respect to the original trah8aotion» as 
that issue n&s not tried nor determined by the trial coiurt. 

Plaintiff contends that defendant, in order to obtain froa 
her the covenant not to sue him, made false and fraudulent representa- 
tions as to the value of the one hundred shares of ^^erioan Industrial 

'i&t>x<t &d-i «•:? Xijcl** t^o&iJo siii lo al&vf.«f sxi^t «o aiotw m^^J. ertejfw 
dVJBg i)J5J3 '£a&Jitf»^»xli 9EJ«tt Tfc£ 5»«®iB l:'ti;JtjJ;«Xq htiB *'i^3£ooD .O ♦*!>' lo 

®!i6a®ao«»a; "SO »d«n ok ajaw aiSfO'" .tjWBCfffioO a^tsSl^X ^nodtiio^ "So 

Ai^ 3£»oO jCoauSo atii lo afc©®©©^^ arf* 'to .1'XfO "«000i,0$4 sifrf ^o^ navig 

9mioa ^Sotf «000|OIf' ^ol tfM so ano fitm 00<.>»©X|i toI miB-BtiX 10 6i6tt « 

03 ion bib arf .tisxis bai.'itiei&i in&baBlts'J. ♦Miri 0:^ itsri bsxiubotial ban 

©Lea fl ba*B*i^RKOo aol&osinmjii ®rf* #r>ff* 8ft«9*aoo oof^ sixol^fjsiKsastqea 

©Xj3Q JB ajsv/ lj9?&orfJ Jifewtili- ft,rf ;f*^;} beilL-taa* atooD .atocda »tli to 

X»^tB m.f.\ex OVY? li-.-tftu t'5C«^*fior; a.rf.i' otf -y^saiC i9R hit btm io«*i: ®xfi lo 

0& 9'.v »F)9lli:ra©i ae^essaA -con rfl -rsiiJiMH «:Ioorfo sif^ &r -,• jzj 

b»BeIXa eif* ncqw gnxiBOcf ®ofjaI)iv& 9fW 9*i:f> 0* ^jiaaasosn it. aieob i9lk 

tt« iaoiioBHiiy.'xi Lsat^.tto Btii oi $c&c no iifiiastte'tti&x 9Rla1t 

4^xiiOD L-^.tri edi xd heaiunsirib 'son botxi ioit aew quqb: 

-jsia&QO'xqGX *«0l«5i/£i:'i £>«« aoXsl abmm ^mhi ssjta oi- ion ine.a.Grr d 

Finance Corporation stock given as collateral with his note for 

|13*500» and ae to Mb financial condition and wealth; that she 

■believed the representations to be true, relied upon them* and 

executed the covenant solely "beoause of the said representations^ 

and that equity, under such a state Of facts, should set aside the 

covenant. The trial court* as we laave heretofore 8ho\m» found 

that plaintiff did not accept defendant's promissory note and the 

collateral "by reason of any false and fraudiilent representations 

made to her by defendant* ^Plaintiff contends that this finding 

of the trial court is manifestly against the weight of the eviddnoe* 

"The rule in chancery practice in this State is too 
firmly established to be now shaken or overturned, th&t 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. Pst tereo n v. n pot t , 142 111, 138 1 Fabrice v» 
Von der Brel ie, 190 id* 460j Greensf e lder v* Qorbett, id* 565j 
Arnold V. ITorthv/eete rn Tel epho ne Co* ) 199 id. 201,''' Tcolxuabia 
T heatre Co* v. Adsit, 211 111. 122, 125.) 

The above rule has been followed in many oases* To cite a few: 

RQohe V. Booheo 236 111* 336, 385; Valbert V. Valbert, 282 111* 

415, 4241 Preston v. U.oydt 269 111* 152, 163* In Schiavone v* 

Ahhtont 332 Ill# 484, the complainant sought to hare a contract 

for the Bale by her of certain real estate set aside on the groiinA 

that she signed the contract because of certaim false representations 

made to her* In the opinion the court said (pp* 498-499) • 

•♦The Tsasis for the relief asked "by the complainant and 

granted "by the decree was fraud, and the burden of proving that 
fact v^as 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 
shown. ( Union lTat» Bank v* State Hat. Bank a 168 111* 356| McKennan 
V. Mickelberry, 242 id. 117| Carter v. Carter, 283 id* 3247) 
The evidence must be clear and cogent and must leave the ntlnd well 
satisfied that the allegations are true, ( shinn v. Shinnj 91 111* 
477.)" (Bee also Kuska V. Vankat , 341 111. SSSj 3627) 

After a careful examination of all the evidence bearing iiip<m 

arts ^sifd^ idtX^eV btLS aokiibts&& i&lomsal'l cM o;t su: £>a« 4(X>a,£I| 
,a«oi^s;Mi9a9T:(j0l bJiaa ®ri* "io eajEr®09<f t'^ajE^^ ^ausit^-wjo erf* berfx/oaxo 

^Qisabbiva silv 'to Sd^tmf »di^»silH'^M •^I#a©lj:|j«sj si ^ttwoo Xiai*x;j mi^t 'io 

mii Jsarfw ;^,aii;? «' ■ wok ecf o* ftaxlp.i.r.crcjf39 rljsrri'i 

erf ie« lllw jii ' i-^-vJii*. iis-io^jh siJ* tTJi-iioiLlnoo si 

X'-^rr'/^ft* ri? rfc3 xii itinl to m>ifn^r'o « noijy f; 

j^^ -ios'i 'to aixnlbnll ,■ , '■ ;■.■• 

jfrel ^ : jaeo Ttr^JS'si nl &»woIXol n©©cf asn ©Xifi erotfjs ©rfl' 

«14CI.agtf ,g^ ^daiAv ,v i'X9(JSi^7 i5S£ t"^'^ ..'-":■ v -^ »e,iifi og .v ftrfoQg 
«'"" g,it|&Tr<.j^Mo8 nl 4i^,b£ ((S2I *IXI OdK ji^^i^^ «v iso£9«sS ^*S!^ tQXJ^ 

hmso't^ 9s;{3 JKO obia« ids s^bShs Iset HiBix&o Io ted Ytf ©^■«a ©xf* sol: 

*»■'■• ■■' * ' '■" ■ <„'.rj'.^:-Jix * ' ^,i;i'^ ■....;.:! JvXX • .- ---.-o-.- ^-.j- 
XXew fonifi 9il;J eTeoX 'imfti tins ;^na8<oo tvxiu -ijaeXo ocT jax/ta 
*III Xf/ (jfinMrj ,v jK g .> r( £ ) »»irr;^ c^xr. sjri«l.tB-a9XXja orf^t ^jisiiv) ■.-•.■... ^i,;r.)a 

•^^iR^tlB sHlt'tocf ooff®&JtT'5 .s>jf{* IXjs Io aoi;t«fite.£jx© XwTtexso aj x«)dl,\ 


the issue raised lay count two we find ourselves una1)le to liold 
that the trial court* e finding as to the alleged false and fraudu- 
lesit representations is clearly and palpably vrong. Indeed* certain 
oircumstaacee in sTidenoe tend strongly to support the finding. The 
figure of plaintiff's aon-in-law stands out ia the "settlsaent* 
JuBt as It did in the original transaction. It was to obtain control 
of the Psttibone Mulliken Company that the syndicate* of which he 
wa3 a member, was forned. He miB vioe-president of the compajiy 
at the time of the original transaction, became a director on 
January 4, 1931, and continued with the company eron after it was 
placed in the hands of a receiver, on October 12, 1932. Both he 
and hia vrife advised plaintiff to loan the syndicate money. Froa 
the tiae that the loan "waa made Lyman secmb to have had authority 
frcBi plaintiff to look after her interests in the premiBes. He 
testified that approximately two years after the loaii vtes made - 
the company was then in receivership - he conferred with defendant 
"on the basis of having every one involved in it [the syndicate] » 
sign an agreen»nt whereby they would pay the money back to Mrs. 
Dudley and put out adequate collateral;" th^^t an agreement was drawn 
and signed by plaintiff and presented to defendant, v?ho 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* a claim against the meidberB of the syndicate. JSTegoti&.tions 
were carried on for four weeks * during v^Mch time there were a number 
of coni'crenoes between lawyers and the parties to the syndicate, s«ve 
Cook, who insisted that the 1^40*000 was paid for the 4,000 shares of 
stock and that he would have nothing to do with the proposed settle- 
ment. Ab a result of the conierenoes a settlement was made where¥y 
plaintiff received from Sib hia note for ^lO^OOO, from Lyman his 

note for $1O»OOO0 fron Angstes, his note for |6»500> and f rem 


hlod oi aldumj QsvXaa^Mo bait *«. ©wtf yjWHUo.^tf ftssisi &sjc.qI exf^ 

le^fxoo ais*«fci oi e.&w il *myliv>s&£tei%i iBai^txo &Hi ai bib ix a«! Sn^t 
0ii doifiw 1o ,aJj^;0J:J'MaRia »il5> ieif^ -^iSBCEWOD JS9MiIX»la ©isci<fi*#s€ sifj- to 

J5^ 'To*a?>':i.& a ^erBosjtf *aPi;Jo.i8WH.Bi£t .L«;KiT^Jb«© »xltf "io &mli erf* ;Js 

:ijr<'.: ;H -i^il.a wov!) iccj8CfiS'.?o ©fJl rfiiv? fi9tfml^m)& btss «Xft§X , -^ ^^jjaeX 

Oil a'cfaa «t':SC^X *S^I Tsi^oJ-nO -an (,'ipvi-.i.iv:>t « 1® afii\GJH;if #d* ai E3oo-;Xq 

Xiiiotlitss had ©TSi^ o;i' Efiffe&a njeersJ ©{jjeaef 8*-;W n ■ csrCJ smti ptl^ 

£fv. ruexBd^'x,, .. «XfiX9#«XXeo 0*jai^«&e trso iJ'if^ feitB YsX&.wfit 

t *ss»rf 0gsoMD Qdi "io ^awxoJitB ^trxonteo-rr; ;? «i?U8^' niKjst^sfl ,£S9X. «if©"iaM 
"Rtjilq to ;?K9«oX^.i9e xs tfoo^'^i .'ttiinlslq \€ ktfttla$9t eaw 

tE»tf«tffr' *■■. . .':'xv&' .<''<SiC- ■ -". xmo attswr 

sitw« ««*aei:f5ja^8 odi o;> ctelj-'jijaii SMJ* bm axo^Pai jn^dw^stf eoaftsia'lnoo lo 

axii nmrzd. mi^ tOOO^OXl icol »^oii aid ux.i ajo-il feavi^oox Vii^xti^Xq 


defendant his note for ^13,500. Sach of these parties receired 
fr<aa plaintiff a written covenant not to sue, and it was agreed 
tliat plaintiff should giTe Eit, Lyman> Angsten and defendant a 
letter to the effect that plaintiff expected to sue Cook and that 
if she recorered anything frca hiia she would immediately credit 
the amount on their notes. She has a suit pending against Cook. 
TBham decided that Eih, Angsten and lyaan were unable to put up any 
collateral or security with their notes and agreed to take their notes 
without collateral* \%ile Ihast testified that defendant* during cme 
of the conferences I stated that he was ahle to put v^ whatever 
collateral plaintiff wanted* he admits that before the s ettleatent 
was made defendant's attorney, or secretary, notified him that the 
oaly collateral plaintiff coiild put up was one hundred shares of 
stock of the American Industrial Pinanee Corporation* ^^ham 
further testified that he asked the secretary what she thou^t the 
stock was worth and she said that the corporation was doing a nice 
husinees and that the stock would he adequate security for the note} 
that later that day, or the next day, defendant told hia the same 
thiingi that he relied upon these statements as to the ralue of the 
stock in oonsuiamating the settlement* The attorney who represented 
defendant in the settlement, Schrager, testified that WhMI stated to 
hijDi that they knew that Cook was the only member of the syndicate 
who was financially responsible and that w4iat they were anxious to 
accomplish was "to apportion the liability among the four people" 
(Sib, Angsten, Lyman and defendant), so that it would be possible 
for plaintiff "to go after Mr. Cookj* that he told ISham that defend- 
ant had been a man of affairs, engaged in very large transactions! 
that at the moment witness knew of four or fire 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 smy money j" that in the 

saso sislwjb ,^®'i!5& $^xS &®i'tl#sat iicfsif*/ ©XiHV*^ .Xartst^XXe© iJxfOjrf * iw 

*HSIK©X**«J a axJ^ a'£©"i»iS' 5«ii* u^lsibB ftd ,&»*a«w "ili^JKiaXci £j8t:o*«XX»o 

lo a0Tafia Sj^'Cfeiitiil ©.ko saw qss *wq: &X«f«>f> 'ili^KifcjsXq Ijs^e^^IIoo xls^ 

®&ifl as gaiob saw jaoitf^iocpcso 84* ^siiiJ Hjse 9iis iyijs £[iico-w 3»w ^looife 

)o#oc ad* tot x.$tiuo^u »!i&tsj^ahn oo' &X0OW :ioo#© &dt ^Smli baa H«»nliij;/'«f 

©Etsa &di mid feXo* iK«I)«3lab <ita& ^:c®n exi^ xo n'lj^b *fli£^ asieX d'sil* 

e*^;^ I'O scXbt <sili oi sts &i£t!sisi^^si& ^ass^j m^a ballet eM t&tli t$els# 

ad-. jHi*«;fa aauCf if*^* l)©l'jLt<a9* tt«S«^^©^ tAiaBHasIittea fdi cl t^Wfeixsl?*!) 

©;^<3oi&jH^i3 ®3lcf "to ^0«faaxa ij^Xwo Qri;> sew iSooQ ^;fUSC? wsitjS Y^^^ ^J^f^* *tM 

o* aooixrwa ©ia>^ -^Coxf* *>?!)*»• iflrf* fciKf: aXifiernxjest ^XXBiormislI^ sfsn oxft? 

?jXtf±e«o<j ©ef ftXwow *i S&di &© ^(d'ja!!satt»S»& feas jtjssar^j: ,«®;?«5«t/'^ «tfM) 
~6ri*j1:*»b ^a^* «isi^" blai e:tf *M;? "45f«>f30 •«&£ ire^lUi OB 0*" I'ilJJ-fiijsXq •£©! 

aXa!i»& X«i#a»*8crwe ©Vil ao iwol ^«> wawaC na^nifiw iustBX>a Bsiii ia ^Bdt 


eonferences there was nothing said to the eXfect that defendant 
would furnish adequate security; that af-.ev the papers had "been 
drsun "lihsca called -^jd-tnass on tlic3 telephone and asicsd him vhat he 
knew of American Industrlnl Pinance Corporation, to which Mtness 
reppontlec! "that it vms no "better than Mr. I«'aace was hiaiself •* 
BefendsJit denied that ho told Ihsjn that the stock was worth ^13^500 
or any other sum, &ad state<5 that just before the settlsniGnt was 
eonsuramated Yliaa tolr? him that he would like to have some collateral 
for defendniit*® note; that witness told hia that the only thj,ng ttiat 
he had wes one hundred sh^^reB of Atserican Industrial Finanoe Oor- 
poration stock, that the coaipajiy had a lot of deals pending aad if 
they went throue^h the company was good, hut that if they did uot 
go through the stock was not worth anything. <haaa did not contradict 
these several statements made hy '^chragor and defendant, although he 
was afterward recalled hy plaintiff as a vd-tneas in rehuttal. Viham, 
in his direct testimoay, stated that in one of the conferences he 
asked defendant "^hat collateral he could put up, and that defendant 
Bentioned "that he had a little InTestnent company called the ABien oaa 
Industrial ?iaanoe Corporation, which was getting tinder way thea, and 
he thought there wae a chance to m^ske seme money, that it had ample 
capital;** that "he had considerahle stocks and haade and gold notes 
of the Pettihone Mulliken Ccaapany." Asic'e from the talks that Iwham 
elaime he had with defendant's secretaiy and Cchrager, he xaacie no 
effort to ascertain the value of American Induutrial linance Cor- 
poration 'Stock, which does not appear to have besa listed on any 
of the stock exchanges. 

The eettlement v^as made through the attorneys, aad it seems 
reasonably clear that all parties considered that Cook was the oniy 
aeaber of the syndicate Tirho was finfjicially responsible* The syndicate 
had ceased to function as Pettibcne Mxaiiken Company had been in re- 

n&M bsai arjdtiJ-jq ««£# sai'lo *»ii^ LiaHwooa »^supfibr. £al0i*r1 .blwov 
9d ^isifeif atM 5BS£aa Sum »iK5jr{f^8X»# sjrLf «o «seii# A.t ftsIX^a gteiff rmsirb 

OOavKif ^tfTiO^r aer;/ ai»©,i9 arid' ^S'.nrf.t fltain- 6Ioi 9M irnii bolUBb ,*xieft«eT:aa: 

f«40*Jl^t)»' ftSKBa -svaja^ o;t a:{jSI b£ijt>w eii tsdH^ jstM bJoS m^s^i. ti»ifmsss'^t».p 

'-'ita© iiK»*«i»i1E X/slti«^ KnttxmiA lo a©^M» EKJifetarotf ««io a<«w JbBil ««( 

#9i;0ji»s^£i:oo *«»« foil) atolf.' .snMg-^jRja il.1«aw *o.a 8.ew 3(00^ s»rf^ ifeiroirf^f <ja 

*-aQi)fl:®'i©5 *JsfiJ hiUs..-. j.^.;; >ri:?t| foXi/o-ft ojtf Xst&jJ-jsXXoo :is:jii'>' dnafewslftfe fceaCa^ 
JI0O ii&iB^ ©li* BeXXso itttsQiflB ^ iKAK^BOvni ®XJ{>i:X « bml exX itjsfW fc&tioJUfl^E 

mion 6X33 bm Q&OJil feaa gsfon!.- •f^fau^irjiamsf* ;d*MC «Mi" *«fft flXarfiqeo 
fflsMi? i'^sff;^ aiXj^i »rf* iSBtt't a&li-. - '^jcisicjgieO aosIiXXjiM aaotfii is*! adi to 

-T09 «oaaai;rX.'3lxiajj^flX xtSi:f3.H«arA "io 5»c.X«t ®iii joiadrxsoa^ ©i d-sol'S* 

• csaxtMoxa 3£ao*8 sdi to 

i^HO sii^ a^*' ^5)OD ;rjs5i£J fj^-iefei^woo K©J:^tc«q XXa daiiJ liSsXo YX<:fj8«og««»t 

rf.r.<: i:>«$r vrii'.cfcfo;: iiestlXXMK »x»cfXwi;re'i qb jBoi^omrT: o>t bf^ssfo bsrf 

ceiversMp for nearly six months, and Lyman testified that prior 
to the oonferenoee he had lieen endearoring for two years to get 
money for plaintiff from the membars of the syndicate, but without 
suocesB. It was his failure in that re^rd that brought ahout the 
retaining of v^ham. Plaintiff and her attorney were contending that 
in the original transaction the $40»O00 had "been obtained frcan her 
by false representations made by defendant, and it must be presumed 
that in their ccaiferences with him in relation to the settlement 
they were dealing ^th him at arm's length, and it is difficult to 
believe that plaintiff and her able attorney relied entirely upon 
the Btatements 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; Elb, #2,500 on his note, and 
defendant, |2,175 on his note* 

Defendant contends that the alleged false and fraudxilent 
representations do not constitute false and fraudulent representations 
within the meaning of the law. livhile this contention is forcefully 
argued, we deem it unnecessary 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 
thsm by defendant, was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, 

IPlaintiff contends 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 

Sfi©flieX;^*s« 9rf* 0^ miialst at mM iic.'l^';! B^oae^elooo ■xlexi* ai ^ji|i£d 
oif ctXiJoi .ii on.s ,rfiJ8«oX a *iaTt« iB tsclxi drfiw 8HIX159& 01&,. 

xtfeJasixA Lali: .Xeis^taXXoo ©xiif 1© saXav &di bixia 

aim to^foa axxi no '•-■(' ■.it S^' ..a'i;... t : iliaij&lq btAq^ Jb^ 

&imii{3in&Q»'iqs>-s!: iu&lubu&i'i bits ©eXjal s^tfiH^Baoo toa o* »ltt>i*J5*n6BSTq9i 

-^^XXJu'iao^ol iii aolia^iaoo nidi aXMt-' «waX exlj 'io i^axft^eia atf;t exlrfd'lw 

sfif tsGxnhi& tcifo ni as 5x noqw aajaq 0* x^>^8B90!»xtsuf *1 aissfc o\'/ ^bsw^T.:; 

aa&JtiisnitifiB&'xqp'x itt&ljJbUBrtt bas saXisI fesgaXXj-i axW ^o *osll3 XfiS'-I to 

Oi :^alriu'if^'t til b^'xie ,ti.ucr» 'siii iMii a&Ho*ra>o 'l"3:ld'fllBX'"L 

gjrus noiiibaoo Lai^asatl boo^ ni:*' 3j3w ssi iaili ax)itAfa9a@ti^9t a* ins. 

©tf oi b&txeqi'xuq, Hbroosi • ,. '•. sfloi;tBS-^-CRc aM iasai bluoo 

<SS ©rurX. bcii? ,-%5ex »3X XjaM bats&rtai Bdaesuabi/t "^o ««l«oo bailitfu©o 

•Taw a*iWiiaBbi;t ^0 eslqoo 5©il:l^i®C" rrexirfo owT .dasiasXtf^sa sxfjf 'lO 

against "M« A. leaaoB," and plaintiff failed to establish tliat 

Moe A* Isaacs » 
H* A* IsaaoB was the defendant,^n either proceeding, v^e might 

further say that in our riew of the eridence it would make bo 

difference in our ccmclusion had the records heen admitted. 

We find no merit in plaintiff's contention that the oourt 
erred in refusing to admit in evidence a certain document, signed 
Toy defendant* which was offered "by plaintiff during hex cross- 
examination of defendant. The court ruled that plaintiff mi#it 
use the document* for impeachment purposes , in her cross-examiitation 
of defendant, and plaintiff's counsel, apparently acquiescing in the 
ruling, asked the witness questions in reference to the docxment. 
Plaintiff now oomplains that the court should have admitted the 
document in toto » It is sufficient to say that if plaintiff con- 
sidered it competent in toto she ahetdd have offered it during her 
rebuttal evidence. This she did not do, and her able counsel, at 
the timep appears to hare considered it as not material to his case* 

After a careful examination of the record and the points 
made by plaintiff, we are satisfied that the judgment of the Circuit 
oourt of Cook county should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so 


Sullivan, P. J., and Friend, J., conour» 


i^asf;? iisilMBi?.i^ oi Delist 'nk.:siilsil(i bcis ^t^oHBal .A .M" #a«i«sj3 
»aossaI .A soM 

-saot© t»rf Bffl-fc-'tf^ Ttit)8.i^lq -^ fcoTslto saw rfoMw , Jiujbuolsb xoT 
rto-U*!filiaGX©-s60TO teii ei *»*80ct*t*g itteaadoBaqjtsl rot «Sat9fiiuoob arirf ©aw 

ftj^ baHtlmh^ ersui bSMoAm ^i-iAfOo crii i&si:^ a«i j:«Xcifi» o wen ^^iJcisX^ 

is fl'mmjoo slJfjs lerf &4ie tOS ;to« foiib aria Fi-triT .©susfeivs X»*JM9i 
B^aicq sdi bsa& &n*os^ 9xi;t "io Hoi^sniaax© Iwlaa/so « To;t1tA 

• betQb'xo 



Appellee » 

HSMP.y SEIffiE'vAlIiT and 

S<FIA STI':iGBRv,ALDX, his v?ife» 

et al*t 


) APPil 



^9 0I.A. 603^ 


Frances H. Sternola, plaintiff (appellee), filed her 
complaint to foreclose a trust deed given to secure fifty-two 
"bonds aggregating .^-18,000. Henry Steigerwaldt and 3ofia Steiger- 
lualdt* 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 v.'e find 
merit in appellee's contention that the ahetract of record filed 
"by appellants is entirely insufficient and that many of the state- 
ments of fact and the arguments made hy them in their "brief are 
not warranted "by the record. Appellants, in their notice of 
appeal, state that they appeal "from the order entered on May 23, 
1936, directing the defendants, Henry 3teigerwaldt and bofia 
Steigerwaldt, to turn over to Harold A. I^ris, Receiver, the sum 
of s'!627 within fire days, and also from the order entered in said 
cause on May 12, 1936, directing the 3;eceiver, Harold A. "Javis, 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 6p.Qvee of foreclosure and sale entered in said cause on March 
21, 1936." Appellants now seek to raise a number of queBtions not 
covered in their notice of appeal. This they cannot do. 



fesXil btoo^'x 1© #OK"x#»flr^" ©ffs ;^srf? aoXifnaJiioo a'eeXXdiiq* x:i ilieta 

»^a "isitcf lisif;* nt eiati^ ytf aftjsiu a^fnamui^iii ©ricf &aB lost to a^nem 

«es ■^kM no ba-xs^ns labxo srfd^ mo^'i" X^aqqa ■^9ri^ *jBxf;t sjJ^i^Js »XaoqqB 
«ilo<S bus #t>X«wi9ala*e ^.%it«|: »!a;J«»b«»'teb «rfdf axtjfd o^xib «d€«?X 

biaa lit oa-fsias isbao 9di moil osls bcjs ^exab svil: «irfd-Xw TSSI^ !• 

ei taXvfiC .A bXoaisII .tsyl^oa otli sitlio®ii& «dr.9X « SX y;.aM no OQtsao 

bQioolloa aXac^n 'T »xlrf moil SV.sesl; lo ota'S 9il^ lli^wijeXq 9di oi xsq 

«ot1 X.s«q[qa iftii^iwl a^iusXXaqq* &«« ,noi:ta«j;fp at BBalmetq 9tii aroa'i 

riortsM no qbubo bl0.a at hat&ias eX,s8 bOB oisisoLoBtol lo oe-rosb eiiti 

^o« anoi;ta8x/p lo rrocfraun a aeisi o* isea woxi a^njsXXsqqA *.a£GX ,Xj3 

.Ob ^onnso ts/f* aitfr ^Xaeqqa lo ssi^on rtiwf^t ni bsisTOo 


^^ppellants contead 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 ehow that the action of the court was a clear 
abuse of diseretion. A.ppellQe filed her complaint on August 31, 
1934. On September 1, 1934, a,fter aervice upon appellants, appellee 
moved for the appointment of a receiver. At the hearing upon the 
motion, although appellants had not entered an apjiearance, they 
appeared in person and "by counael and pji order was entered directing 
them to "ooileot any and all rents accruins from said prcaaises ajid 
hold the B&me ixitaot until the further order of the Court." On 
kieptemher 7f lii'^Ai appellant Henry oteigerwaldt filed a petition 
in the United L-tatee District coiu-t, "under Section 74 of the Bank- 
ruptcy >iot as amended," for the purpose of obtaining an extexision of 
the indebtedness secured by the trust deed, and the petition Btatea 
that an order v;as entex-ed by that court "that plaintiff herein was 
enjoined and restrained from proceeding \vi th said foreclosure suit 
during the pendency of tlie 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 
i^tates District court was dismissed on December 2, 1935, for the 
reason that the 'inited 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. J)uring all of this time appellants had not an- 
Ewered the complaint in the foreclosure proceeding, indeed, had not 
filed an appearance in the cause, but appellant Henry 3teigerwaldt 
had been collecting the rents from the premises and occupying a part 


33 rl ;rtv 

ibm aiuaoXoeio'i oj-v. 

.;■ feo^f»ir:: ■■:■"■■ - " ^ ": C . > :tfilli 

-fu-; iiu. MV.i^ 8iJK«XX.»q;<i.55 SU,r. ' -; SniiJUii. .«93u:d^ srii Y/^i O-i 

#l>Xi3Wt9sis*e ifrtiaH ;tflAXl»tfjB iiftf ,©«M3e oat* xil eoGsrciaeqqB £» b^in 


thereof. On December 4» 1935» upon motion of appellee* notice 
having been given appellants, the court appointed Harold A. Davis 
receiver of the premlBes. It appears frcaa 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 tsxes and interest, and penalties 
thereon, the sum of #4,135.59, and that the premises were scant 
security for the ejsiount due or to become due. Although the order 
of the United States Mstrict 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 against them. The motion was supported by 
a verified petition of appellant Henry Bteigerwaldt which, after 
reciting the proceedings in the United States District coiirt, 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 foreclosure; "that in the bill of complaint, the plaintiff 
alleges that there are a large number of holders and oivners of said 
notes whose names and addresses are tmloiown to plaintiff, which 
allegation is false; tha.t plaintiff has named all of the noteholders 
In her complaint and the plaintiff 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 nsmes and address- 
es of wll the noteholders prior and at the time of the filing of t he 
complaint, they filed affidavits of non-residenee and ISiknown OTsners 
and publication for Unknovra Owners, which affidavits of Hon-residenoe 
and Unknoiivn 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 to the trial ootirt 

asiiljtmaq baa tJ-as'^e^iii feaxj aaxiji ;?«& ^<.: ^itodi iaAi 

iaaoa s^aw aeajatta^q ©riJ ^i'S.aeitfr^^ lo acuB sixf;^ ,nooi9d[;> 

tobtto 9il;t t{swoii;^L-v .sub &ibooo(S ci 10 ©wb Jnworxfi 9ri .-t tol \;*iTjjoaa 

no ,a;JnBlIeqqa »93i;yc da-siaai art* xii ©oxxsiaeciqa rl9iSi snlisjjtie 

STjBSl Toi .tTJ/00 oAi bavoia eialw rfcf lol t&SQl *^l iscteeoacX 

isfaio mj bua ,baiK»& ajsar nGi;^offl; xloJtrf'ff ,a©oaJWB9qqj3 itssii sltl oi 

l©*l/j (doJtxfw *blJ3Wi9si:9^y Y*CH9H ;j£SsXl9qqiS Tto noJt;tx*oq boi'ilTav a 

;^flrii bns ,e©Il9qqs asbiascf atsbloifod-on tedio y^«9w* eia ©tsuIJ ;JjBri;t 

bias I0 arar- yrtsbXori I0 terfomn a«tt*-.L :xfrt Bew'-IIn 

99Bma ettt barf; Hj©in®#+ -ii^nlaXq »xl: iBlgmoo isif xil 

aaaibba bn- .. sis^isodil". isiii 

9x1*1© salXll sjU U iit^ ait»bI«ii»*oii (ixdJ XX 

a-xBiiwO nv/o«:!i£fiJ bx^ ss>fl«bic3i;~fsofi lo 3 J irvab Jtll^. l^lli x^^dA tSniaXqwoo 
s»xi9bifci6a-«otii. lo bitvablT'tii /ioXdw ,a**:^fi/^0 nwoKafnU ^lo i nol^isoXXtfi/q boa 

aaXi 9x£d' 3^e aaXel: ©«f oJ a-voxui sio, Lai: siis aTsmiK.J wwoxuixiD' baa 

©aWBoeff ••.Y9«^oJ;Jb isx£ bxis lli^rfilaXq sdi ys! r.islit !3'-"/-'7 sict,'. a zdi i&dd 
■j-iuoa Xb/ct^ r-rut od tsisXq saw :fi ,.,:_ .:..,...:„,. ....„ ,.u .-!.;.-..._.- ...^. ail* "io 


that there was no raf.rit In the contention that the trustee vras the 
only party entitled to a complete foxeolosure. Indeed, the trustee, 
Chior.go Title and TruBt Gompanyj peruiitted a default to be entered 
against it, thereby conoeding, in effect, the right of appellee, imder 
the facts set up in her complaint, to foreclose under the trust deed. 
As to the allegntions of appellants* petition in respect to the un- 
knoTsn owiers, we understand from appellants' "brief that they interxded 
"by s-iid allegationB to assert a lack of jurisdiction of the defend- 
ants "Unknown Owners." Upon the oral argument in this court appellants 
conceded that the trisil court had jurisdiction of all defendants end 
the su^bjeot matter. After the entry of tVie decree in the instant 
cause a petition was presented to the trisl court, by the attorney 
v/ho represents appellants, on hehalf of Adelaide Griff en, in \?hich 
she claimB to "be the owner of a bond, and that plaintiff had sued her 
as an "Unknown Owner." The petition states thc.t her rights ware 
being jeopardized by appellee &n6 that the trustee vfas the only one 
who could foreclose the trust deed, axid she prays for leave to inter- 
vene and answer the complaint. This petition '«m£i verified oy peti- 
tioner, before the attorney for appellantd, a mouth before the entjy 
of the decree. In appellee's verified ans^ver to the petition of 
Adelaide ^Jriffen 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 s/hile at the tiue of filing the complaint 
she did not know that petitioner o\vaed a bond, never ihelees, peti- 
tioner had actual and personal knoiivledge of the pendency of the nuit 
on September 10, 1934, had attended one bondiiolders' meeting end had 
notice of several other meetings; that the petition v/as filed "Tsy 
Jacob Levy» v/ho is the attorney for Henry oteigerwaldt * * -^ merely 
for the purpose of further annoying and harassing" appellee. The 

, 'j '.V. : caft* tsfmil s&oX.. i .iJtjsiX<i«f>e t©ii -;^o..'.'t srf,t 



o J:;;, ci J^i ^lOiS 4^ 

. frcro erf'i - -iaieXo alia 

. :,... ..0- Uli.ivv- QdTH 

. .^j-.~ --^v .<,...: — ,, ...... «9;^8*a 9rfa aol^laC dbXsXs&A 

-j:,* . t . •;6.t»rf:ta-6''rfi «^K<!|■£^ JB ftifiw^e t-j^o X;} ij *?q :3sd i woti^ iOK bih t>tLia 
lib: -0 o^hQiXwomf XjBcoaiiwi bnn Ijhhj^ob tad laRcX* 

UXsiier ;; fcXisswid^Xo^B tTEH»M to! ^awte^^ra ari* al ftrfw «ijv»a tfwoa'l 


motion of the petitioner Adelaide Griff sn wp& denied. Represented 
"by an "associs'te" of the attorney for appellants , s'he filed a notice 
of appearance and notice of c r0ss-app«al» l5Ut no "briefs been 
filed in support of thie croBB-appee.1, and, iinder the rules, it 
will 136 disiaissedt SVen if appellants Iiad not aTsandoned their con- 
tention that the trial court did not ha-re jurisdiction of the defend- 
ants "Unknown OvTOsrs," they were in no position to raise that con- 
tention. {See H aug an, t. Miohalopoulo3» 280 111* App, 2.^9, 245.) 
The purpose of appellants to harass appellee in the prosecution of 
her compl-^int in clearly apparent from the record. In a petition 
presented to the court hy the receiver it appears thixt the prendsea 
are iaiproved with a f our-a|3artment "building and a five-car garage; 
that one of the a-partments and two of the garage spaces are occupied 
"by appellsuit Henry oteigerwaldt, who also occupies a poiction Ox the 
basement as an office lii his oontractitig "businesa; that wtoigerwaldt» 
sinoe the receiver's appointment* continues to collect rents from 
the tenants and refuses to attorn to the receiver for the same. Until 
appellee moved for the appointment of a receiver, appeliauts were 
satisfied, apparently, to have the record show their x ailuie to file 
an appearance in the oauoe • 

In view of our holding that the court did not err in denying 
the motion of appellants to file au appearance, it ia not necessary 
for us to pass upon several minor contentions rais-ed by appellants. 
However, even if appellants virere in a poaitiou to urge them, we would 
hold that they were without sufficient Eierit. .-.ppellantB contend 
that the court erred in entering the ordor of May 23, 1936, on 
appellants to pay to the receiver the sum of ■1627.89. Un May 36 » 
3,936, the ijotice of appeal was filed in tiriia oause. .-appellants con- 
cede that the order of May 25, 1936, «a& vacated by an order entered 
on June 1, 1936, but they contend that the court had no juriadiotioa 


9oU&ti & bBlit t>ria ,e*«i8XI»^a -sol: ^©£tt^«*t» stff:^- lo "a^filooaajfs" «/^ -^rf 

-bite •*«'*■ *T*^ 'tr Pf ?d¥!.r*».'?litirt •«fifi Heft-feift #5»o& I«J::t;J ^tf* #bM# JToJ;;?0st 

■ lit^im, en lit eiam X'''*i'^ "tert^^msfO aft-pfoUxU" sins 

(.?5i^S e^'^S »qtf^' ♦rXl 0#g « npJI awa elsidoM .v flpy^f/ari; »»f.) .aolctnf;J 

^0 m}l:^x/oP«'C''^rr erf;? n.?: *5S? flf-cr^p sas'ZjMl «;^ oJKcIIo^g:* So saog-ziwi sxf^ 

.b^iqx-'coo ©rtii asoeqs ©gjaxaj^ siiiJ iij 8^* &na aioet^isfjq^s »4* 'io ©no o.')xicJ 
»iii la aoid'-ioc .si aaicjijooe oal ■ .< ,.-^;.>i.;v.-x9P.;i si'.' ^-si/sE jiu?sll9q;q,ii! ^a 

0'i-3W &iiiBlLQ(iq.B t'xavxaow.t ^. v. ,.«.....,.., ..^wj..,. i^-u^ «wi |i«T©io «»eXXe^qfi 

. miUs-Mi adi ax 6oite%soqq_n an 
^nix--— ' --- •■••■ ■ -- •■ •-- ....-..;- - >f .■'•'; rnrf 11/0 "io wsiv *'" 

TCTKtia»o9« Jon ai ;*i ,aofie's«»qvi>-' -- ^...1. ^. »J-nfiXX9qs^> '^i^ ..„-.....;; aifw 
,85a«5lX0qqj8 ^cT &»al^ sBoWoeifto© 'x«>«i« XB«^Y!ia ao^tf aaaq oit a« itol 

hfTM;fKf.r. w.hintXsqqA ,Jii«« ;fitalox't.1:iji3 .tmjfyiw 9«»w v^v-O .-tK/f^- feXorf 

-fsijo 8;^iXBXX©c[q;A .sexiao alri* al boXil ««w iA^qcrs to &Qlion adjf ,df.G/. 
hats'iit© tsftno tua '^crf 69loB«'r --^-^v ;'■*■•«■- r ^E^ ■?;«M ■'':r • ■"'- -•.':' -^-^rij gfooo 
iiox^roibaiiut on £ml ixuoo sxtj ; i^j ';,i,;.:}uoo X:v;l^ Jytf ,do^I ,1 snx;l no 

to enter tMs last order after the filing of the notice of appeal, 
and we should disregard it. In view of the fact that coiinsel for 
"both sides concede that the order of May 23, 1936, liVP.s vacated and 
that appellants were not hurt hy it, it is entirely unnecessary for 
us to pass upon the contention of appellants that the court erred 
in entering it. Vaiile contending that the court was without juris- 
diction to enter the order of Jxme 1, appellants insist, however? 
that we should pass upon the right of the court to enter a certain 
part of it. It is a sufficient answer to this inconsistent position 
of appellants to say that the order of June 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 
reim"burse appellee for court costs and expenditures in the proceeding^. 
The trust deed provides that a reasonahle sum should he allowed for 
solicitor's fees, stenographers' fees, for outlays for documentary 
evidence, for cost of a complete abstract of title and for an exami- 
nation of title » etc., ^id that the costs and expenses sliould ¥e 
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- 
ceeds of any sale made in pursuance of such decree, all costs of 
such suit or suits f advertisingi sale and conveyance, including 
attorneys', solicitors' p stenographers'! trustee's fees, outlays for 
documentary evidence, and the cost of an alastract 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 

tot leanvco isdi io&i stii 1o ^siv nl .il b^fvgs'Sialb hluods mv has 

bti& beisi^Br Qff^r ,5eei ,£S» xsiK Ic lab'xo eri? ;t-ii:; obeaaoo ssbia rf^fod" 

Tol ^^aasjofirtiitf ^-tsrci^na ai dx <:^J: ligcf ;t«£rf (Jon ©low scfK^IXsgqB ;J,ari* 

iiijs*n:©o j3 leiiiQ oi jii/co ftrii '±0 cfjlgia ©rli noqi; aejsq bluorle aw d'aJi* 
aoi;^iaoq[ ;^n«^aianooxxx aMi ©^ Tiswaue ^tfioioilliJa e si il .o'J: 'io i-isq 
oiolesf Y'C°-CQ<3:o^q: ^o" si X s£Ji;1 'io xebto sd.i iBdi xas oi aiaall^qqa "io 

• iBSqqs ^asasaq sxl^ aoqu aif 

oi haa «5T«8£S0 Xaem/oo a'sQXXeqqs •(; o^ X'SvxaoiS'i- edi ao isbto 

flgnxbseooiq siiif n.t aaiij^ifius^x© bos a;f?po Jxwoo xgI salleqq^ ©anwrfiaxgtt 

'lol i)owoXXB ao' bXiJoric auxa aXcf^rsoessi jb i&di aabivotrq: basb iswii SifT 

X-x&iasmJoob lol a\sX^£«j lol caaal 'at&dfiBi-goaeiti ^sssl a'-xoixoiXoa 

-xxafiX© xia tol &xib sX-txi lo d'oa^^scf^ si^Lqsmo b Io inoo 'xol ,son9l)ivSji 

aioild d-axJ^f OfiXs ^baob *;jtfii aiiw goJtaoXosiol asaoaf) ^ca.*-: ni bawoXIjs 

-oiq to aiae'i edi Io c^jjo bxeq bnjs ^Qoro&b x^^ •^^ bsbuloa.! ed bluoda 

J.0 aiaoo XXb too'iosb rioiia Io soafijjaioq ul obsm elca x"^ ^0 sheso 

^aibuloai. tsoas'^avxioo f>«s aXaa tgjKi8x3i6v&« tticJ'li/a -xo ^xxfs xiowa 

t9l eiXsLitiO ji8Qst a^Q9iau%i < ^asadqfi'xsons^ta t 'sio jioxioe <'a\;sm;o*#s 

'to f£oi^BXiiiaBX9 oas dojei^S'scf^ an Io ^csoo ad;} l)XJa tsonsbivs ^aiacfnsiSK/oob 

QSBfisqxo foaxtuoni b^jc£ Q6llQq,qs iadi bsmoJ. eXaa 'io SQioeb axiT . sXo ict 

otIbjjXdxs iitua Io a*aoo bati S^»V9X% Io emu Bdi al ax&Huo deao ba& 

B bad sda d-axl* ftas'xosJb foxtjs «as)©1: s^%3ia.ism baei eset 'BY9n'xo;t;^s Io 

Bi&X.qmoQ bsaisist ;t'ix;oo edi isdi habiroiq^ btm jTolaiadi nsxX tcoiiq 

srcolscT brxB Oflix;? \;ni5 ^;- bQaxoioxo acf oi tsawiso sriJ xsvo noJ::f £)Jtl)eiai/t 


sale of the premisee or any part thereof, to order the payment 
out of any rents arising from the premiBes, of the cofct& taxed, 
including master's fees* and of the suaas found due to the several 
parties under the terms of the decree, according to the order of 
priorities fixed liy the decree. The cecree also found that 3uffi» 
cient moneys were on hand, in the possession of the receiver, and 
ordered that the sua of f 238 .79 "be paid to appellee. hile it cay 
he conceded that the order, entered hefore the sale of the property, 
was eomeiivhat irregular, there is no question "but that appellee is 
equitahly entitled to the amount in question. Moreover, aa appellant! 
were defaulted they are in no position to question the order. 

Appellants contend that "the decree of foreclosure and sale 
is not supported hy the evidence." Aside froai the fact tliat appel- 
lants, "because of the default, are in no position to raise the ques- 
tion as to the sufficiency of the evidexj«e offered in support of the 
complaint ( Glos v. i hedd , 218 111. 209), we find no merit in the con- 
tention. 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 vdLLh 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 duys after the entry of 
the decree, wherein they asked tha.t 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 follovdng: "It appearing 
to the Court that the original exhi'bits offered in evidence herein 
have disappeared from the files in tMs cause arid the Court "being 
fully advised in the premises. It is Ordered that leave he and it is 

X*v,i-»t9ffi -jii* &i «nil!> fciaiol Bca/fi yif* Id ban «8ss©l a'to^ajRia 3ttlbJ!/l<inl 
lo 'tifei'O Oil;* »? a^&*-too»« ,0«toafi «jii' to Offlrrstf aild ta&nw aoiJt^sq 

■nm « xft»Ti98<^»'x afl* 1o noists-aaeoq arfd- ax »bri.<3ri Xfo srew gncsuciai itnalo 

tY^rrsqo'Sq oi© to 9l«a &{^t 9'»^»cf bo-je^tfl® «rc»bio srf* d-«rf* bab^ onoo srf 
ai ©9£X«5(j« ^xjxid- iiitdl Kox^seirp on etl »tmit ttj&IffgsTii S&siwasaiDa Aov 

.'cafcico 9x£;t noicfasi/p oo nelilaoii oa Hi ©xs ^exf* fta^ljffjelab aT9w 
oXjqs &XU3 »%uao£ii9to't to dircodb sxf^'* ;»£!(# bfM#i» 6 V#ib^XI«^i^^ 

-aaxjp «iW osJUi 0* «>j!#iett^ fin ai »Tr* «iX£r^1b&fr taoi^ In devMoti:, <...._jI 

»jE[* !t0 H'zoq^qsjfi ak h^^ello •"ptss&lre arid' 10 x©***-^**'^^''"^ '^'"''■'^ o* &8 floli^ 

- too &iU ax i it&ia on bnil aw «('«Oifi .lit gjlii «jy|gi^ •* .-^-:jiii) Jaiislqaob 

;i^>jn{;^ isM QXpt^^ b«oubbJB eofii^rbivs oii^t lao'xl feiuro^ t^ittem &iPS •aoiia9i 

.#j5ijBlufflK)» 9xi* Kixw »tambt0'jt>a ttl ««»e*F) s 1:6 x**»* »rf* b*1bnc«(iiH009i 

oT .iwi.t«6*nod ^fjttedanl sd* ix^ f^ttk^^ oa siiJhrfiif axxoiS'om sudlieir 
lisiT:!* sxfJ sTolsrf 8£d:b3»i6o«Q jb to* l'»t9t ajftsXt'l^A i©*irt#ai;iIX 

m I**'** a« t«?*it9 tiiari^o tMii iaii b©3t3s t;s»Jtt* lii®i&'^'''J^ ,n«-!rri»h >\cri 
«i J-i btic. 60 ^^v«ax jp.ii.c- b«Tsb-iu ei; .i j. ,a&«iaj9Tq sx£i ni bsairba x^^^'i 


hereljy given the Plaintiff njad hex at:;orney to file true or photo- 
static copies of the original exhiMts offered at the h-^aring 
herein." It appears from the record th^t tlie sitvifL.tion in refer- 
ence to the exMhits heGPiHe so serious that appellee wae forced to 
ask the tris.l court to impound the filers ^nd records in the ca&e. 
V/e are at a loss to understand why appellants shoxxld see fit to 
refer to this unusual sitTxatioc. In appellants* petition for leave 
to enter their appearance they do not question the validity of the 
trust deed or the notes in question, and the defence interposed in 
the petition is "based solely upon technical grounds* To eupport 
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 the trust 
deed to declare the whole amount due, constitutes a meritorious 
defease. Their petition shows that after the filing of appellee's 
complaint they went into the United Btates Iiistrict court to secure 
an extension of five years of the debt secured "by the triust deed. 
Appellants did no*: 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 persletent effort to harass appellee and delay the proceed- 
ings. Her attorney was compelled to appear before the United. States 
District court in the bankruptcy proceedings at least forty-five 
times. On December 30, 1936, appellants filed a motion in the trial 
court that the order ©f default against them >e vacated and that 
they 'be given leave to file an appearance instanteri that the order 
appointing Harold A. Davis receiver be vacated. Cta December 31, 1935 » 
an order was entered denying the motion in toto - Appellants then 

l[x.(s l£iai^i'xo e>i Icioo oiieje 

9Vi^ ^3»% jmM i^<^ 4:it4MsSl»q!iJ3 ttl .rioJtJBJf?JtK I^aswm; aJtnrf oi islet 
arli^ lo x*'^^-^"^'^''' 6*^ a^Xi's^ifp *e»H oft x^rf*^ 98«Bt«o<jq8 xl«4;J 'x©*«9 o* 

sjioiiOfJiiQiB a qpn &i»a aoXili ^a sdi irMi aottftf>taoo biittUi'tia xl&tUt 

o'seXXeqqa lo a^^-tXi'i '^^'ii •-■^it awor:^ nf.t^ictsq aiara' .aenalab 

»'.tuo**a o>-f ittioo SoliiaX'i &t>#iji-,- fes^inU a: jhsw Tcaiii ^nisXqmoo 

itttsilqBino a'ssIX-^crqp. Mi 'snox^ -■?*«> i; aoWasffp tea btb a#fl»XX»qg;A 

al iY?'i»<l«'^<I e- ^jr^^"*^ X^^ *o" f>Xx/ow Ysirf^ 3ai;ftf)»tf 

"P.ih feiooB'f ?»ff^ «Sg©X »o«l.a Ilk ?o r!»?o^;+ on foijaq •^©ri* isriif bi5>#wq.aih«H 

-&99001!, . tfao'lt© iaBinlBtaq^ s aattoXo 

XpiI-x."^ Sii;^ nl kox^om b bsXll: a^trteXXsqqa «8CeX «0£ -xstfjEt^cea nO , ssmX;? 
xi3ifj a4'aaXX8»qqA . oj'Ol gl aoijoai axCd' gisX^aeb Bsas^Ks aj»w lefeio oa 

appealed to this court from tlir.t order, and on Jt^nxiary 31, 1956, 
the appeal v?aB dlsmisBed, upon motion of plaintiff, by the first 
division of this court. 

We are satisfied, from a careful examination of this 
raoord, thnt appellants no real defense to appellee* £j coBi« 
plaint, and that they are merely seekinr;» in orc-.ry posssitles way, 
to and ohetruct appellee from ohtaining her plain rights 
in the preiaises. 

The crosB-appeal of A.delaide Griff en is disaieeed. 

The decree and the orders of the Circiiit court of Cook 

county appealed from are affirmed. 

DiiCK-iE AND ORiSJflti APPi^ilJS FliOK MTll^:ji^ 

Stillivan, P» J., and Friend, J., concur. 

,i&gSX »Xf' lE^sMH^t n« brta «ttgbrf© ^ :/f;r jBO'tl: ttwoo str£* o^ bslBsqqja 

«,fTirf»o attif to n©i:«lvJfc5 
aMd 'iO mt^smimsdm Sis't&^iva a aott t&eJt'iaW.^e arcs oSiT 

I 'lif '>nc' <-' , 

Mr. ,,T. .'■ .(^.vrixjf?? 



( C ouiplai nant ) App slle e » 


\;ASn Li\UiiDIiY, IliC, an Illi- 
nois corporation, JACOB G. WACasnai, 
and GUi:iTAV H. PIBCBm, 

Defendants . 

lAUHieY, inc., an IllinoxE cor- 
poration, and GfUSTAV H. FISCmilR, 
(Defendants) Appellants. 



290 I.A. 603- 


John E. Artlbey filed hia "bill of coiaplaint against ;^rt 
West Y«aBh LEtindry» Inc.* a corporation. Jolm J» BeierYKalter» Jatcofc 
G. Y/agner &nd Gustay K. :?iseher. The cauBe T»aB heard hy the 
chancellor, and Art ^et Wash Laundry, Ino», b. corporation, Beier- 
waltor and Fischer have appealed from a decree entered in the catise. 

The hill of ccsaplQint and aJaeadment thereto allege that 
cojuplainant, John J« Beisrwalter and Jacob G» agner incorporated 
defendant corporation on August '^1» 1926, for the purpose of avoid- 
ing personal liability on the part of the incorporators; that each 
was to haTe an equal TOice in tho management of the ■business and 
hold an equal number of shares of stock; that 100 eharee of the 
stock was issued to each; that complainant and Beierwalter assumed 
active chrrge of the husinesfi and each drew a salary of $75 a week, 
and for all practical purposes conducted the business as a copartnes- 
ship, using the corporation ae a shell for the purpose of holding the 


-JfclXI ;■ 

. tsiitijbne'isa: 

■8oa .A.I eg i 

-:. . .. ;;;ii ,yyxniUM 

♦Tfiooo san: '¥j uoi'^tio eht {towscviiiia laAJfeAC*^ aoiTSin. .am 

b£>#*5«o<ino3rti Z9[SQ&^-' •%) rfcoiiL brii* ^-aJX/swioisfl .T, adoX, tiswiOliSq.imo 

"biov-G "io esaqnaq 9«f;t lol tSSWI «!£ iavr^uA no noii^iociioo Jn.Bbae"iob 

xloBo isaii is'i&iiiTxnitooal »di to tistq, bHS nc y:d^iXicf«xX l&nonr^9q, i^ai 

btv.\ HSaaxBUfl adi 'Ic i nofiCJi, Kasja odi ni solOT XsWjJo hjg evuxi oi saw 

oxli tc a©'i;jjiia CX)X jfM;* *,;£s0#8 Io aataria 'to ■tsrfndjn Xi3i/p« rus 6Xori 

j^w/ses nc&it^XavrrolaS &n.@ ^ la^n j^^Xoiwoo i&di ido:iO oi foauaai 8iiw ilooie 

-ioaift«qoo a as aasniaxjd' eri;t btstSoisbaoo ssaoqxaq XsoirfooTcq Xl^n lol buB 

property and avoiding personal liability; that the laueiner^a was 
successfult a Burplus v/as accumulated, and a laundry route of 
consideralsle value vms developed; that on October 23, 1928, Wafcuer 
desired to withdraw, and sold fifty shares of his d tock to oomplain-' 
ant and a like amount to Beierwalter, for $5,000 for each fifty 
sliarea; that complainant and "^eierwalter each paid S2,000 in cash 
and executed and delivered to Wagner a collateral note for !^*'3,0fX}, 
pay.'hle ^5') or more a month and interest, and rach deposited the 
certificate for his fifty ohares ao security for the payment of his 
note J that it was agreed betv^een complainant, Beierwalter and Wagner, 
that funds oi' the corporation v/ere to oe used to pay the notes and, 
to avoid legal objections, the hoard of directors, on ^oveiabsr 2, 
1928, increased 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 tiie husiness, complainant and Beierwalter entered 

into a stock purchase agreement hy the terms of which each should 

deposit all of his stock with a designated trustee/ each should take 

out insurance on his life payahle to the trustee, the premiums to "be 
paid hy 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 he 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 insurence policies and for other reasons therein stated; that the 
agreement manifested the intention of the parties to insure an equal 
voice in the husiness , and to the survivor the total oisaiership and 
control, and to prevent the disposition of the interest of either 
party without the consent of the other; that Beierwalter connived to 
ohtain control of the company and defraud complainant, and to that 
end represented to complainant that since v/agner had disposed of 


aaw ason±ai;(f s>iii istii ixillMiill Xonoerroq -Qaibloya brtB '\£^ioqo'iq 

lo 9.+wo'j •\ji5nu«X ;$ &aj3 nbBinlumuooti saw auXqrtua s «Ix;'lea9ooffa 

tt&Kn.'iV «8P.e,[: ,c.S taero^oO «o S^iit {b9C[oI«V9b ajsw stflBv »IcfBio5xs«oo 

"ttlclqm.Qi: CJ .irl 'in a?>Ti?rie x^'^^"^ &Ioa P)k.s ,wciftri*iw o* bdrttaofe 

rie.30 fii 0€iO,Sf^ bJtsq rfoss r£»*XjRWT:©i9fr 5: --ifnia 

«0OO«fi'^ rto^ atfon Xbto^^^XXoo js tsxjj^jbW o* bsT-vlXeb bnjR'fee^wosxs bns' 

9di ba^lBoqeb xfor>fl bne tiaaisj-ni bn.r; rf^aojB i sldln *f<!» t^?^? 'j^Xtf-^^eq 

alrf In *rr9Biv;£q &di 'id x^ ^"^^^oea ej3 aeiexfc "^;^'^i1t ali-I o 

t&ftfj nfjJon orf;t YB<;r "^^ f-ssu «•?: p,-t c"7:=>.v rrnj.ti-sioq'ioo sdi lo sbntrl: d'JSff^ 

OOL^ oi T3dXsWT[9lsS bns iosisiiiXqiaoo io asttAlJ&n »Ai boassBtottt iB&Ql 

eoxov XjEWps as Dinarrl o;^ .tsri;t jabnifl xfoija ri;tlw r!T-r!;t sMvotot o# itsow b 

bsisd'na laiJXAiwas.L -JjuBnisXqiiioo ,aaonJtaucf s .usmoannam ©rf* ni 

bXtrorfs t{o«s9 xioiiiw lo auras* 6x1* v;tf ^aaiaeartajB *aj8iCo«Mq aJ®o;tB s o;t.tu 

aaJfi* &Xs/oria dscs \6e*airxi M^jsityUaafe b ritftw sfoo^a aM Io IXjr *i8oq«b 

s^ oi amjiwimtq, ari? taotei/^* orij oj »IofjsxBcr slrlX alrf no eoitetwaril #«o 

&&tatn.i 9di isjcfila "io iBf*«8& arf;t rtocrw ^.I'.xi* snoi^jstoqToo aif* vcf biaq 

-o'lq ©rf;f «i« i£oo;ta bisa to rio^m 09 nol^gfoGCTfoo otii ei ts^nnsti blueds 

"io 9#-8^a9 ^rfi^ a^* ©onatiranl: 9ff.J y^®*?" '^'S^ t^nemsaTWJS sdi &i ^aibTOOos 

t« *a<jjBX e.(i* «">qif s^tBrtiflTia;? feXi?m-l« *rf«M»«»TaB ori* ^^.r^rf^f ?c>nflaa«>3b orfi^ 

arf* iarit %boiBi& ai»rfdii[J sm)a«©Tr ^s»rid'0 reJ. hstB Q^iolXoq, eoftsirtf^nl orfj 

Xj5«i>» ruB sTwanj; o* a»l:tTt48q: «tf^ ^ neij»K9dnJt erfit bs^aslinjsnr ^ndores's^r^ 

bnja q:J:rfet9«w<i X.s;Joi arfiJ ^©vimij's arfj «# hitjo , aesRleitrrf -^HJ Hi »o.teT 

TSffiio to *Ri>«ad^iii 9x£;r to neWlaoq'^ife 9si$ insr^tq Ot^ b«« «XoT:*m»o 

oi boyinaoo TdjUfiwrraJraff imlf f!r»«Id^o ^>^l* to #n98KOo oif* ^imriJlw '^ttsq 

.IjisJl* o* b£m «d'xmttijBXqHK)o bi/jB-stob boe YWeqaroo »rf;t to fpt^noo nis^tfo 

to boaoqcQife bad 'saitasW softliB #arf» ttmntalciaoo oi bsiititasitqe'z bn& 


his stock he was not qualifie(5 to net as director and bJaat it 
was necessary to elect another director; that Beier^jalter suggested 
that each transfer one share of stock to Gustay H. rischer» a 
■brother-in-law of Beierwalter; that each would still have an eqvial 
interest and voice in the buaineasj that yisoher would takt; the 
stock without consideration* and \Jould hold it in truest and act as 
a duHjmy director; that complainaxat and Beierwalter would continue 
to act as officers and managere of the corporation; that the two 
shares were then transferred to PiEcher and he v.'as elected a dir- 
ector; that in furtherance of the scheme of Beierwalter and i'isoher 
to defraud complainajit , they, c.t 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 Ms ser-rices were no longer required and he would not 
he pexiaitted to draw a salary; tliat Beierwalter continued to use 
the fvinds of the corporation ±n mtiking pf^ments on hie note to Vainer, 
hut refused to permit the corporation to supply complainant vl th 
funds to make payments on his note; that as a result thereof com- 
plainant was unahle to make the payments due on his note to Vvagner, 
and the stock deposited as collateral security was offered for sale 
and bid in by said liiagneri 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 tertoinatedj 
that Beierwalter, vagner 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 Beierwalter > Wagner and com- 
plainant should at all times be employed by the corporation and should 
each receive a like salary; that Ta^ptier lias pretended under the guise 
of a forfeiture that he is the owner of the fifty shares of stock 
referred to, and intends to vote said stock in furtherance of the 

il isiii bCB ttiii os>j:lb ej? ,to^ ♦# &«i:lJtXs«p ^ei< mam. m$,3lQoia aid 

I,swp© aa sTjauif X£id;f( i&Jtoew d&»fi ssaii j xtrji i^.wi«ieS Iro w*%£-ai-T®ff*o-xrf 
till;; Iiiow :ii»a{&axU i44iiU. 4«fc!«aJte4/rf »£W ni soiov !»«>« JsdiejnJt 

iMQw ban tAOlt^jsttsbianoo ;fi;;o£{^i:w :CooJ8 

«.ij .i .« j>ii»*o®X® aaw sxi fofls 'xsrfosxi: oj b-JtTglsxiaiJf jB«|!# 8%»w «»x«jB[8 

^to 5'.-: .0 aaiiaaa I^tfixas tu^ t^ %%9&i , j-OBaljaXqaoo bn^Tllftb o;J 

bn:% , ci;,-;hJ:asi(j as ^asuisXaflioc ^lo as^tt b9*.8«"i96 «a^Oitosiib 

tefi feXuDV ftri bflg t>9*tii;p9i: -x5>g£coX on a^isv/ aejoirrtoe eiif iv&^t iCL&al&ifi 
osi; o.! ":^iy«ii«GO ifstXew^tsiaa d-jBXl* iXXsXafi » w«t6 ©* b9;t;^Jurt3q acf 

-laon 1«s'!;94^ ^Jjaeei & as ^.s££:^ i»#on aiil no slflftv^'^g: «3f«9i «^ abxur'3: 
tt:. 94o£[ ttld Kc ©ill) sJi^9sEn£js<i %sii ^tim oi sld'aKSj ei:m dn-eaiaXq 

3X. /^xi&fose Xsis^i^XXoo «« b&ilaoqob :iooia Biii bos 

ib®i&SiJ^v iisndei^A BatiAo'imi Mo^i» »tii |>CMMia4> .^^^xmli bixs 

erii «i>3:fc; rXqanoo ©VBii t^ifotti'? bas xsi%.flW t-reJXjawxeXaff ^tariiJ 

~il;: 'X»ail'tci 8©TX3aff:9ri^ SnidoeX® ^«f jRfiX^^ioqioo erfi "io a;t*a8« 

•-nijsXcpsoQ itxiJi'Xcci; . ^sl^yfiXoa tft stQiai^ 9iti x»&£Uf a^^aea arii saxweicb 

-s»o bos taasaV'' t;t«*X«waipJt*e^^* cfitflaisaia^ aa lo HdIJaXoXv ni t#iM( 

bXi/orfa bnj9 ttoiit«^oqiQO oAi X0 fto-^dXqmft wd" eoraJt^t Jil».,4M bXooxlQ ^^ashjubX? 

•«ijj^i ariiJ 'labixw baba^^^ng a«4 5«H»a^ ♦4»fl* Jt^Xsa ©iIlX » »yi90£»i rioiso 

ioov' idB 9A* Itf jEem's ©rf;} ax 9Si t atii atai l^lixol js 1:o 

ariJ lo ©oOBaoxlitx/l cl afoo*s blr.a »iov oi obD9i£ii ban ,o# b&irotei 


scheiae a'oove ^et forth; tltot 3eierwalter» Wiagner tmd Pischer 
have entered into a conspiracy to cell the laundry rnutes owned 
"by the corporation to a competitor lor a fictitious sad inadeqviate 
conaideration under a aecret agreement whereTjy Beierwalter ^ould 
obtain a sulastantial interest in said competitive "busiaesn jind out 
of the proceeos oi 8uch sale »Vagner \70uld "be paid whatever balance 
may he due Mm for the Ltock vhich he agreed to sell to ccsaplainant 
and Beierwalter, leavin^ the- corporr^tion with nothin," "but property 
heavily inourobered* without cuctouers zai& without good Tdll, sjid 
tliua render the shureio of complainant vforthlessj tiifit Fischer wbould 
he ordered to return to complainant and Beierwalter the two shares of 
stock transferred to him; th£it siiioe all payments made to Wagner for 
the btocis; sold "by him v/ere made with funds of the corporation* tiiat 
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 oomplainant to receive compensation from the corpora- 
tion, and the failure to pay from the funds of the huoinesB the bal- 
ance due to v.agner, complainant has been deprived of his equal ri^ts 
in the v;agner stock; that out of the proceeds of the btisiness Wagner 
should be paid, and ;ill of said stock turned into the company as 
treasury Btock; that Beierwalter arid rischer Imv© diverted large sums 
of money from the corporation ruid coaverted the same to their own use 
in the form of salary and other withdrawals, and should be compelled 
to account; thiit unless defendants are enjoined aiid unlebe a receiver 
is appointed the defendants vdll transfer their stock to n pretended 
innocent purchaser for value, who v;ill vote the aame 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 .1 ischer be ordered to account to the corporation aiid complainaxit; 
that iB'ischer be directed to transfer the shares held by him to tho 

9isiu:^i>'imi bias 8xroi:^x*oil jb tfol 'z&iZistqpioti a Qi no i^Jjiaoq-xoo sxl* ^tf 

ia^iMliimti 6^ li^B '44 bsa^M ed doht,v lia&su ^i %&l atlii 9ifb ^ X;«<a 
hxii-i t 'yo^ issoiiil'W has BtBociauo l»oxiiiwi«&eTedia«ool 'viXiyaSii 

:2ol lets;; ''Sffli siti^m^Bq, ISm ooaJta #sfiJ ?iBiil 0* boTislexiaiE* 2l©&ila 

^fixfij elIoli^J3■x^^•xoo sili 1o objQtf'i ii^iv? 0&«!a ©•zaw mid %4 bios iaotfa ©fW 

bljjo/fa ,«>o.5:*i«f e'S^rfofifor ?>/i[^ lo s©itsXi?cf etli ic ;3'«9fiiv;«c[ noqj;/ ,iiO0Ja 

-o'soq'ioo suid {Hoil nol^xisn^^aws 5vi9t>«'x && ismaL^JLtiiaoo to iii^kx BsLi lo 
"lad snU aao/iiuytr arltf' H© afcfUsrT: ad* woitl: >&wii o# s-iwllsl; arfi bxia «afiiit 

afiwa '3'^.Te.X ^-?'■•■-vl^ m-.rtif •^■^^DsiT ftrte' 'r^^-JXiwi^isfi ifstii jslood-a x'i0«.«ST* 

05;..j i*i3toqa:*3 edf a© si t!:&«ojh "io 

tifj." t--:0oa 0rf bXiiOi'9 &njr. ^aX-^v;. ■> fitm \;«JBXaa- lo artol 9x1* ni: 

b©bno#B,^ . S.tvr ntstabas'ieh sri* bsjfwioqqis di 

oon,o-rsi?i'T"A ri: ^n-?; ori.* s^ov Hi:':;' Oflw ,ax/XjQT ^ol asaaxfo'iuq *«soomii 

iail)^)h-z3l.i3ft isili a\;»'i . ■,t45<jlaal5 btm beiunvr ^>a XXiw 

i J-njaiiJfcsXciiaoi: xiH'ioqtv-. ijooou oi bsxsbTO aef larioexi. baa 

orfi ocl fflXxl x^ &X»xI aanaaitE ©x{;» TQlanatd- o* hnio^itb »d laiiaaiu .uui.i 

coBiplainant B.n6 Beierw&lter; that ..agner "be cardered to turn oyer 
to the corporation all of his r=tock, eubject to a lien upon the 
same for the unpaid "balance of the purchase prior ; that Beierwaltftr 
and Tisoher he enjoined from disposing of any part of the property 
or huBiaess of :.he corporf:tion, and froa holding any meetinge for 
the election of officers in which the stock in controrersy is voted* 
and that a receiver hs appointed. 

The verified enewer of Beier\»ralter admite the incorporation 
in August* 1926, with an authorized capital of $35t000 and the 
issuance of 100 shares of stock each to Mm» to .Vagner and to com- 
plainantj alleges that the incorporatiwi was had to protect the 
assetE of the company against the personal debts of complainant; 
denies timt the corporation was organized to avoid personal liability 
on his part; denies that there ever was an agreeinent that the "ousi- 
nss3 of the coaipaiiy would be conduct sd in any inarjier other than as a 
corporation; denies that the affairs of the corporation //ere conducted 
as a copartnership, and the corporation used as a shell; admits the 
husinesB was sucoeBsful; admits that he and complainant each pur- 
chased from .agner fifty sharea of Ms stock for v5»000; admito that 
each paid |^2»000 in cash on account aiid that each executed a collateral 
note for the balance of :^r.3,000 and deposited hie fifty shares of stock 
as collateral security; alleges that the said transactions v/ere personal 
and independent; that said notes were the individual liahility of com- 
plainant and the defendant respectively, and that the corporation was 
not a party thereto; denies that it wa,r, agreed that funds of the oor- 
poration should he used to pay the notes; admits that the salaries of 
complainant and the defendant ware increased on Uovenber 2, 1928, from 
$75 to tlOO a week; alleges that at the srune meeting, on account of 
the favorahle condition of the company, a dividend of $3,50 a share 
was declared; denies that the salaries -Jere increased to provide funds 

<i>iS!^uv aJ: ^sxftYo ii:.t ac f fti iooia &di doitiw ui n'lsell'io le «oJ:*ot>X» ©if* 

» b»*exociQ£i 9rf i*Ti;">£>a*x a iasii btis 

ajtf* bn£ 000, e£# "io I«i*1qbo b«sJt'£orl';}'«» rus ild-iw <dixei tisss^uh. at 
-asDO Oit fons loaiB^ OiJ «iaiif o;t xfoje© ico^fa "io aasijiia 001 'io sotmajBol 

J iJriaxii«Xeia©o ^o attf9i> £sf2oet»q. ad* texiies^ YJE»C[iact) &fl* ^o a^osa^ 

■^*lXi<l'BJcX X«fK>aT:3q: feiors^ o* iis>sift;ssxe af?>v netij^toq^oo srf* *ari* esiaab 

~X@i;cr sd^ i£Jii *no£a$ex%A xi# ei:^ is»t« exexi^ *Kii* 8»lit«»& )ii'^ mM tso 

A B« xi^* tt 0X1*0 t^mtsisg. xan nl b&t&vbwv »<il Mjuov i^imqaioe srii to aaan 

.b©*o«bxs9p e-'iafw xioidfiiof aoo t»ii* lo B^i«'iljB 9x1* iadi asinofe jnoi*BTeq*roo 

9£L< ^;*4;'i^ jXXsxia b £2^3 &£>«£; aoi*ii'xcqL^ 00 e^* &ixi] ^i^ Ida's. otii'miioo s ais 

-luxil i a&aX&liiaQO k^na »sii i&di ^IJUa^^ jXi/'xa^aooxra a«w aaoniai/cf 

*i3Xl* u*Jua&ia iO(>0«a<^^ xox 3£{>©*a aM lo aa^iufa x*lil ^seasew mo:i1 beuAifa 

XsT:9*eIXoo js &9*i;oex e xioisa j&dd biia JmiocahS uo iiaa» xji 000,84 feiaq ifojs© 

ioo* a "io aaaaxiQ ^*'i-t'i «i^ b9*iuoq»6 btm 000, £^ lo aoiiaXaif odi xol sion 

XfjQoaisq dtc9\v afSJdiinaatUi'Xi biaG. Qtii iBds as^eXXs t%iltJLio&a lax&ia.llno as 

-fisoo lo ziilMall t&jbXrlbal mii Q'levn u&ioa foteis $atii j*xi»6aoq66Hi ftxifl 

B^flf noJ:*«ioqT:oo ail* *jRri* frixs ,'^®TX*i>®Qa«Tt iUBbaa'isb aii* bns SnaaijsXq 

-'xoo »rfvt lo eJmul .-i^Brr* bog-SBs aem tX ieait «»Xaal> ?o*0isrf* x^'■'^^^ -s J*©^' 

lo aoixcXjcsa &di ^.?ji* a*iffi,bfi jad^on ©xa* X«,q o* bsau scf bXxrofTa nox*aiOQ 

fltoil ,B2GX «!': 'tactasvoE no fcaasrsiofli 9i8w *ne5x;fi>lGb »fl* ba& JnaxjiaXQmoD 

lo *ii;joooB no ,,3ai*e»cf sbwe eil* *« *^* acBoXXe {.nasff is 00X# o* 5Tft 

©isria s oe,£$ lo bt:&btrlt> J3 t-^cttcq;!!!©© orl* lo noi*Xbnoo »XcfBTOVBl ©rf* 

Bbxiul obivertq o* 6«Ba*%o«i 918Ti- s9la:;jX«« oil* issii buimb 4b9iaXo«>6 9jbw 


with whioh to pay Sagner; admits the c xecutlon of tho vtook pur- 
chase acreemeut \vltl; complainaut and alleges thtt in ;.pril, 1930, 
v/Mle complaiiiaiit v/as president, the corport;t:.ou allowed ihe life 
insurance policies referred to in s:-,ici agrociaeut to laprie, ih:3:u1»y 
terminating the agreement* and the a took depoeited therevB^.der ^vas 
Tstumed to the reppoctive parties; denies that the rigreeia&nt laani- 
fested the intention o:. the parties to insure eciual voice in the 
raanagement of Lhe "^DUsineBs;; denies that he conniTOd and schemod to 

oheat and defraua o caaplainant ; alleges that upon the aulo of :^JL1 of 

his stock hy V;agasr, and iiia resignation a^^dlTvefflt or , it was 

necessary to el.iot a thlzd director to fill the vaoanoyj alleges 
that on or ahout ITovember Ht X92u» S'ischer purchased one share of 
atock from ootaplainant and oae share from Beierwalter* axid paid $100 
in cash for each share i aad was thereupon duly elected a director} 
denies that liBcher waa merely acting an a dvunmy director; denies 
that he connived ^vith Flecher at an annual meeting of the l)oard of 
directors to defeat the election of complainant ^e president; alleges 
said election -.^ae held in a Icnl'ul xp.cjmev t that complainant failed 
of re-election heoaisc of his negligfmt md incompetent management 
of the "business during the previous ycr; alleges the result of the 
election manifested the lavfnl intention of a HRJority of th direc- 
tors, and that complainant was present, participated in the meeting* 
made no protest or complaint, and signed the minuteo of the msetingl 
sdmits th-t after Eay 18, 1931, complainant was not permitted to draw 
a salaryi "bec-uee he liad left the employ of th© company; alleges that 
for a considerahle time prior to May, 1931, cc3iipli\inent had used in- 
toxioating liquor to excess, and perirdtted, encouraged and joined 
iwith employees of the company in the use of intoxicating liquorB in 
and about the premises of the company during husiness hours; that he 
frequently alasented himself from the of i ice during Ijueiness hours 

«cr.',;.'X ,Xi'c,. ...1. tfyU ss^aii/s '^rr^ rMtafiljiltiKtn s rWf?^ iJfft»ra»ot?:J3 sajs^o 
9j:i^ «i ooicv i75jar^>o f^ix/siii > . vioMmtttii &iii h^iaoJ 

OOijp feijeq fctts ti:©4iJS«ftei*S jsiYi «»*/a£a »m fi«f? ;^rr,aitlBlq:fl!Oo moll: :;ioo*s 

fs«i**5)wa ftff* lo awa^iiniat orii twusis 6*1® « #fili5JCo[iwj«- to JaaJo^g On ob«at 

S-jsxl;^ a95|9XI« f^JS-i-iiffloo sxft to i;olq|W9 srf* tlsX fJBXl axl ciajj.v-oacf tTjasXsa 'M 
'tii b^Bti' b)^ faisalilcjjmti v-^SSX »iceSf 6if totxn »ffil* eXcfst^bianot) a ^tol 

a«i te.d) ; a-xirtirf aawiairesirtf sni-iwh ^xltiqaroo odd I0 a»a imsig aiii ^i/ocfa bits 


in a searcii for in toxica. ting liquor and on other priTate missions; 
that he demoraliaed tlie cuployeeB and brought the name of the com- 
pany into bad repute j used the funds of the oompany for hlB private 
needs} was at all timeE short in his ■^.ccounts and at the time he left 
the employ of the company was short t>40» which haa never "been repaid? 
alleges that the aonfit.iat complaint of the defendant about the above 
conditione cauj^ad camplainaiit to leave the employ of the company* on 
or about Lariy 13, 1931, volaatarily delivering up his keys, and failing 
thereafter to report for duty but finding employment elsewhere; admits 
that after complaiiiant left the employ of the company the defendant 
refused to permit the corporation to supply him irith funds for any 
purpose, since he had rendered no service therefor; denies that the 
defendant used funds of the corporation in making payments on his note 
to v^agner; denies that the defendant or the corporation was respon- 
sible for the failure of complainant to make payments on his note to 
Wagaer; ceniee that c3efendant refused to permit the corporation to 
pay certain insurt^Jice premiums as provided in the stock purchase agree- 
ment above mentioned, aad alleges that said insurance was allowed to 
lapae by the voluntary act of the corporation in April, 1930, i^ile 
complainant was preaidant thereof; denies that the defendant schemed 
to obtain the asrets of the company by withdrawing them ae salaries; 
deiiies tha.t there ever i?/ae an agreement that complainant, Wagner, and 
the defendant, should at all times be employed by the company and re- 
ceive like salarlec; alleges thnt the annual meeting of stockholders 
and directors for the year 1932 was held on February 16, 1932, pur- 
suant to uritten notice to each fstockholder, that at said meeting 
nagner, i'ischer and the defendant vvere duly elected directors, the 
oefendant .vati re-elected president, and Fischer was elected secretary 
and treasiurer; tiiat the salary of the defendant in 1931 was fixed 
at |65 a week and was fixed for the same amount for the year 1932; 

laneiaaiffl niBrt^q aaxiJo no btist, rtnupJtl ^Xti&lxoinl xol iiai&9e s at 

-amti &di to om&a orii tfrisaottf btm a^gnjeiqma »iii i/ss.i.ln'xoia&b 9ui *Brf* 

gd'ff^vi'xq airi rrol •v;aiscffiioo exf* t© shnut 9di &?>rw j ^^^(Jsi oatf oiui XP&q, 

ilel fsd QKli Otis i& ba;.? etftiMOocxw «i£l a.t iiotiB aoijiiJ Il4S j^ aaif jajb»six 

no ivr^msmo sx{.t "i© ■'jrolijfiip edi sv.oel Ov-f ;tnjgnl£Xqaioo fcsawja© atsoiixbnoo 
l^cJtXxflt fell*! ttiTjesI aM gi*^«lTevJ:X»6 xlttBirBlav (dcex «fcl Xb«S *wotffi to 

Qjon eiri no Bin&fincxq f^ntTi-mt ai Mti^^e^oqitows 6if5 to atixiwl baair ddjB&fl^^sfe 

©;> 9dOfi bM ne B*riOiSt^.e,q ajteai «t *ia«nij5lq.xaoo to diwiisl 9ild tol «Xcri« 

od- flot^erEcwjtoo odd ^xsrisc?; o* &&»«!©*: insbii^tf^b :tBdS solaa^b i^angjBtf 

-es'ss© »ttsrfo^«/^c[ So©lH erW ai 69f>±v®'xg sxi sjm/ims'XiqE oofijs'iifaai: jciJbav^aso it»q 

o;^ 68W6IIJB »«r iiaKJ3tMs«i l^Jtea *«rf* aasa-J^J-*' 6^^ ♦.Mnoiv+noax efvcete i^iieifi 

©Xiri«? ,oeex slxtqA ak coiJeioq-jco srij lo *o« ^c^Rimslov bd) xd &cq&l 

^aslteXfsa aB modi ^til'^Btbiii hr x^ v,aBt[!mv erf* 1o a^eraaa, ad4 ai£tf<io Ox> 
:JM ,iem5jf»W , <rn.snlaXqfl(oo ;tMi ;rrf9ia9«r!E;j,a ns g«v? i»v» WTr^ail^ t.firi# e^aixt^fe 

aT9bXori5l50.t8 lo afli*&sa immaa mdj^ tfruS* sss^XIa tBftXxaX^a »2fxl avlao 

-rtflq tS€@X leaX x^KarirfeU no bXiiiii ssw S£^X iflO-\C »di tol atojJoaijtb fens 

3ni#'390t biss is indi ^tsblQCi^ooiB rfoB© o* aoi^-on ixsi^Jtivsr o;f soswa 

bajcil: aew Xsex ni. ist£iba9't&b otii lo Tj^slxia 0d$ imii iia'xwj.^a'ii bae 
|SS«X i^ex edi -lo^ tfwem) aeraa arf^ nol: baxll asw bnjs ilt*©* « 595 *j3 

th/'.t Fischer h^s at no time "been paid n salary arid ie not now re- 
ceiving a salary; thnt '■.■.'n?rner hsa not sinoR he resigned as presi- 
dent in 1928 received any B^xl^-ry or other moneys from the company; 
denies that the rtsf-^ndq.nt diverted any moneys from the corporation 
and converted gn,me to his own Uf^e; alls^ss that he p-^rsonally loaned 
the company -Q'^O in 1930, while compl^iinant was president, and ^'^sS'^O 
in 1931, neither of which 'imzs has; heen repaid; alleges that it vms 
at all times understood snd rr^reed that no salrry or other coiapensa- 
tion should "be paid to anyone except for aervicea reudered; denies 
th-'t he has or ever had a plan to sell the Iciundry route of the 
corporation to a competitor as alleged in the hill of complaint; 
denies that -'ischcr should return to complainant and the defendant 
the sharea of stock held hy him, as he is the O'smer of the 3toclc» 
having paid oomplains.nt and the defendant ;ylOO in cash for ecich 
share; denies that payments, to '/agner on account of the purchase of 
his stock were made vith funds of the corporation; denies that the 
company has any rij^ht, title or interest in said stock; denies that 
the corporation or its officers and directors had ox have any authority 
to complete any payments to ''aRner on the purchase price of said stock; 
denies that unless a receiver is appointed for the corporation htt Will 
transfer his stock to a pret?^nded innocent purchaser who %7ill vote 
the atock in furtherance of a plan to wante and dissipate the assets; 
alleges that oomplainant has repeatedly attempted to induce the defend- 
ant to purchase complainant's stock at an excessive and exorhitant 
fif^re, and threatened to institute bankruptcy and other legal pro- 
ceedings against the company when his offer to sell had heen refused; 
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 includinfr the annual meetings held in i*'el»ruaxy, 
1931, and approved and signed the minutes of all said meetings mfehout 


* *i95 worx ion ai: fcfifl \i&Li& a oi^ nserf Qsnii ^,^^. ss*t ^atfoel'"^ iatii 

~i.a»*f B« ftflfl^ias-z Off 9orJ:3 ^or eari Tsag^W ^«ji^ ixtMlr.a a aitlTiso 

Si-:. t*rf^t JU[»a 0* f??-Iq a b«ri Teys to aajci nA itiAi 

i ini)&l<imi9 t© XII* 5©SoXXb a.s ico;rii'3<i;atoo s ©^ ooirfBiogioo 

9di iBiii a#l0©S» j«oiJ^'iaqt»t) sfi* lo about ti&bu fibfm stow 3t!>o;^a elx£ 

l^,slf{t «»liX9b iJit«o^» l>^^ til i^i&%9ial xo dLiti tiii^ii X^^ ^^^ X'^'^IBBOo 

Xt x'lesiiUJii X/!3S &reA %^ b^eA a-n^ifseuJ* bns exoolllo a*i 10 no li bioq^xo t> adi 

acfcv XXJ:«^ oiTw Taserfoxwi^ *«sciOm>;i h&bms^iertq. .« o;f 3(00*0 airf t«»lonarti 

-o-nti f.i^»I rjsrf^p , l>aj3^o^qjJi4aecf 8**f;fjt|anjk o* fe<»a9cf«aiiJ;> fcn« ts-xugii 

;b9aw'l's'i Asati fciari XXae i' aid atidw x^ftsqaivoo 9x1* ifaKlfiSjB agnifteao 

Ifijuxjue XX« XXX ^s#s(iioi4i4B(i .bxua tn9&exq, asm is:iealsLq,imo isiU eajsaXXfi 

aoal Yoeaaoo extj 'lo tno;t»»xJ:fo b«ja a-scfeXorisEoo^a lo 8|5ni*R9iH X£J:ooq;8 bcus 

,^T©wTtfa'S. ni bXsri aani^eaiK Ijsuims o4* B«if>wXoni b«« 0* no iJ^ToqTo oni a*i 

ii/ojiiiw «sf4*«»o«li,6i«f XXp %Q aejtunlia wl^ feeosia b«a b»vox«q« bos ,X5<?X 

probest or coriiplaixilij denies that tha defendant iias conspired to 
cheat or defraud Gomplainant or the corporation; and uenies that 
Gomplainsjit is entitled to an aecountiug oi t-.ny uther relief. 

■The Bia,terial part of the verified anatfer of defendant 'Wasaer 
Btates tliat complainant failsd to pay C:r>6.25 that «as due OoioTaer 23, 
1931, on his note for c3,000, and tiiat c;fter due notice to c'mpl&in- 
snt, as provided in the noto, the fifty shares of stock deposited as 
collateral were sold at public sale to the defendant as the bfist 
bidder therefor > "but that the defendant is n/illing to sell and de- 
liver the said fifty shares of stock to complainant upon the payment 
by complainant of the balatiee due on his note* together vriLth interest 
and also the coats and expensss of the defendant in and abouo the 
aale of the stock. The verified saiswer of deftindaat i-a't wet Wash 
LauiK'ry, Inc. follo^f^B substantially the answer of Beierwalter. The 
verified answer of defendant riccher alleges that he wa,a and is the 
bona fide owner of two shares of stock for which he paid flOO a 
share in cash; denies that he iras to hold the stock for the benefit 
of complainant i?-nd Beierwalter and that he was to act ao a dusaaay 
director; admits that he was elected a director on IVovember 2» 1928, 
and denies the.t he waa a party to the conspiracy alleged in the bill* 

The decree finds that in order to obtain control of the 
busineab and to cheat and defraud complainant, defendant Beierwalter 
conspired with Mb brother-in-law, Fischer, and at the annual meeting 
of directors on February 12, 1931, combined their votes and defeated 
complainant as a candidate for president and elected Beierwalter to 
tha% position; that on May 18, 1951, Beierwalter discharged coaplain- 
ent without cause and thereafter refused to allow him to draw hi a 
salary and refused to periait defendant /urt Wet Wash Laundry, Inc. 
to eupply complainant vdth salary fumds v/ith which to make further 
payments on the note given "by complainant to Wagner for the fifty 
shares of stock; that the installments on the $3,000 note e xecuted 

"HljaXiifiK . i^oii »i/{) toitsa $&sii titta «^J<»tin%^Bt til i9*te« sM m> VXS^t 

.- .- .. ■:.. _„„..._._ , .iivj&rt©td& d«t^ *«i£d' *W vtolatsxf* xsbOitf 

,+aQx-j*ai: i£jiv/ i®d*aijej t&^Gfl aM ito »w& »«xsaXiStf act* 'l« its^aiAlqmoQ Xf^ 

adA ji/ccr».' 'jxu> i:.:. ,Ui..ifi;K>'i.-=b -aii^ "io aoaaoqsra heiE af&oti sri* oaXa ftfia 

daM.t . ! J ■jivuiif; ftciii'iiyv orfT .ifooia ;?££* to ©ii?a 

Bti'S: .^o^Jjj*iaisSt "io -sss-iT.,. . clXaid-tteJ-arfjja awoIXolf *oftI «x''E^""f^'f-'"l 

ojR*^ si bns mm »£{ ^jBxf;^ iiSgdXXjs isif&el? ;fm5f)tt©'3:©b to f»waH.e 59i"3:j:'j:®v 

;:?li©tt»^ 9iic ,> . Jiv/O^e 9i?£i i)Xt>Jl oi asw ait *«rfi aaineb jifajso ni s'XJSiiia 

,82eX tS ledtesToKi ;.... v^^^^.i-.;. .. , ; Ij j.;:jw arf ijsff* a^liaJifi ;to*od'rf6 
♦ixirf ejcti ni bsasIXs x»«'*it»*K>» ari* ©:r "?*'£r,g s axiw ©if JM;! ao.fcna?) bwn 
9iii 1o loaifloo ni^^cfo t>t tab-xo fisl *issii* stall s«io«& oiiT 

s»;JX«3V/T:9i9ff ^rtG6a«?«'^ ^ < ;i r.\^'«J:i-^i<Iffl©o AaffetloS bis-s ^esrfo o^ bits naetiiatfiS 
gfiiiama LewastuB ©if* .• . tX».££o3±'t ttrAX-al-tsftiro'Kf aM diivf by-xicfaaoo 

69;tcsl:efa Sfl.s s»*«?t tte.sf.i ^-.enldmio «X£8X «'s;I x^JEffTCCf®! no stio^s9T:ih lo 

'-Xxi.Blqsaoo t)&-^t»Ati&i:b Iftiiartsj^ff «XfitX tSX I6»i« ia» daf{* jnoi^xaotj #«^ 
eld wjstfe d^ fijM WOXI3 0* baeulDt %eiX'?,art&Ai baa »'ji/j»o *aorf*iw inis 
toril <\;*rhrxrsj: £faA?f #«*? ^-cA #ixa6fi»l&b d-iiasaq 8* Saawloi boa Y'^-si^s 

t*'ii"3t sJl* tol t©«5aS? ©# iii8«Jb8Xq«»o x<f fi»v-ts »*6K »^ no a4naiini.e<i 


•by 2eler>7alt?r vore paia nontblj'-, until the note v/as paid in full 
and that the vald InPtrllments so p?=!.id "wa? salary Eonoy taicen 
ejic' ueea froiE the h-aBinef'S of" srlf^ ccrporstion; th-p.t the install- 
ment psjTnents on the note for •'?3»000 executsd hy complainajat to 
%'a^iieT wore paid each T^onth from his ap.lnry "by coiaplslnantt commencing 
aovamher 23, 19?8, v.-p tc p.n<1 includinr^ IToTeiB'ber 13, 1931, et v»Mah 
time thPTe -wnn !?,n unpeif^ hal^noe of .'^1,150 dtie on tho principal of 
the note; th'^^t the snid pn-^nnents on the note ''nrin^; Paid period ^'/ers 
macle from funds* reoeiTed as a'^l'iry frovi the corporation, but after 
May 17, 1931, Then ■Beierw-^lter dischrrsed connlainnnt , Beii=rv»ltQr , 
as president of the corporation* continue'^ the payments until Ootohsr 
13, 1931, nt which time he failed and r(?fused to use the fimd^ of 
the corporation to complete the pajrments on complainant's notej ^ni 
as a result thereof sagner notified ooisplain^jit th^t be 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 • he delivery of the one share of stock to defendant 
Fischer and that said sh re should b© deenied In law to he held in 
trust for ooroplainant J that Fischer by fraud the rlfrbt to 
vote the share of stock at the weeting of February 6» 19.31, and that 
his vote cast nt said meetins- was a fraudulent action, and null and 
void; that Beierwalter was not legally elected as president and had 
no authority to discharge complainant, and that complainant, on 
l?'ehruat:y 12, 1931, and since, wpb and is the president of the corpor- 
ation and en ti tier! to the same salary aR he then was allo-wed , and to 
such profits as his stock ownership entitles him? that since the 
discharge of complainant, Beierwalter has aBsuaed complete charge and 
control of the management and finances of the defendant corporation 
and has not since March, 1935, deposited any of its funds in any bank 
account and has not rendered any account to ccaaplainant since the 

.im aisw 


Tll^l(da»mtm •• 

■'^* ij&fli btm 

'Jioal htm otf (|i , 

tCSftJP TO aY©fi©:'' 

T-iXsb aif lot aoi:;^«7«bJ:8joo9 



'. ■ ' l^QX «SX X ■-^sJT-ds'^^ 

L:ilia9, bssa aoliB 

.eEt9'-V"TU'--ii< ©ifi 'iO lO'XCfilOC 

'^ i «rfoiaM ©onia iion ?:,<icC 6k? 


■.uiJ J mi. 

aoxis'ioq,ioo ia&baeteb srf* to asorwjni 

dxi^ 9oaia ;»xx«iiiiiX(.iifl©o o;r ^Tiajooo* \flai o^xejbas :t jtojt a8/( baut ^ai/opoa 


latter'e di scliarte . aiio it is therefore ordered that Beierwalter 
and tito corporation shall account to ocanijlainant for all moneys 
colleot'^-d "belOii{:,ija^ to Ui& corporation since February 12, 19^1; 
it is also ordexed that iXbchur deliver up the certificate for two 
sharcB of etoci txid that the oiiicera oi the corporation are author- 
ised Luid c'irc-cted to cf-iictl the certificate and to issue in lieu 
thereof a. nc\- certificate fox one share of stock to complainant and 
one share of ^toclc at the ciirection of defendant Beierwalter; that 
Beierwrlt-r cease to act aa president of the defendant corporation, 
and the court finds that oompiainaut ia still the president of fee 
corporation until hi.3 Bucceasor aiisill have been elected and aesumes 
office; it is alfJO ordered that till of the shares of stock purchased 
Toy complainant f-i-cm s.tjier "be held to "be the property of complain- 
ant, "except for the sum of .^'1,150 owing on same to '.agner;" that 
the court retalyjs jurisdiction of the Hxatter for the purpose of 
securing a proper, Just and tiue a-ccount from defendants Beierwalter 
and Art Wet "War.h .Inundi-y, Inc. covering the operation of the corpor- 
ation since Februr.ry 12, 1931} that the cause is referred to i^inian 
K. .velch to take the account and report the sama to tne court. 
Defendants, appellants, contends 

"1. That the decree ia contrary to si-iUity and the law and 
to the manifest weight of the evidence. 

''2» X'hat the decree is erroneous in that it directs lAietav 
H. Pischer to return the t^.'3 sloarcs of stock piirohaaed by iiim, and 
flnda tliat he obtained the same fraudulently* 

"3. fhat the decree is erroneous in that it direotn that 
John J. Beierwalter certue to act as preaiclerit; and declarob tliat 
Johii ]\, ..a-tibey is still the president until the next regular meeting 
and until his successor shall have been elected and shall have 

assmn e d o f f ice. 

"4. That the decree ia erroneous in tha,t it orders that all 
Bhares of stock purchased "by Artibey from .T»cob 'J. agner, be held 
to b« the -j^roperty of the conplainatit , except for the sura of $1,150 
owing on same to Wagner. 

"5. That the decree Is erroneous In that it includes find- 
ings of fact and decrees relief not based on the allegations cc»i- 
tained in the bill of complaint or in the prayer for relief and not 
supported by the evidence." 

s'^jfjnnffi LIB '-xol rftujfdxiXqflKo od ^io/ooo-' ...i^-.'o noli .--.mSi'.,'- «gt biis 

o'" .. oaoitii-sao ;■ , „ ,Xxj Bl '^i 

-to/f^WB titA ao.ti.'strq'ioo mi. ox.Vn> ^s > 10 a«rt«yrfa 

u9iX nt 9u:.,. .ii>} s^fisaitjtJ'ioo oifi Xoc vto tfrf*) >)iis b©sl 

bxis jcBKi^Xqiaoo oi ^ooiu i© 6>x*5Xi& <t>ii. - Icoo'iBtfi 

ir.di i-x&^LaMtr^i&e. $£mbti&l9b "io lioi#D3^fj& adJj tr? go -.r..-.xla sno 

0t& 'io iaabi&Biq siH Lllia ex i.iBat€.Lvi. . •mto s/ftt fenp. 

asffimaa^ baa ba^ooXa aascf svjci- . rf Xr^ntr wj.L^fitoqto-s 

bsEiJXio^xiq 24ooi8 lo eeiHfla sx[* ' d"! - .''.to 

-ai^sXcixfloo lo ■yi.tisq.oiq axli &<I oi bl&tt b'" ,. -fiLBXcLwco Xff 

T:9^Xi5Wi9i9ff Q*jBAb£ial9b moil .Jmroo. "<tt-n -^vf, ,'S9qoi<i js ^jniiiroeB 

-rroqioo ^dji lo xxoii.'STtfe^o sdiJ SJHi'i- .. rCaa'W f©*^ *«rA "bim 

bits ViiL Bdi bae xiiis,. ^xitsn^i >.- • -■ 

Vii;t<';(;/r: aioor.ti> ?x ;J>^rf^ ai ajjoexxjaie «1 ss'ioob srid- ijsjdl •£'* 

.Y,X*n©XtfbHjGn1: ©jEi^e r»tii bealaiilQ md imii ..' r"- 

>■' »Yai:I XXiWJa tfi© ItocfoaXft naarf air«rf XIsr£a seaasoowa ^ .'j 

0?.X«X^ to Mira 9di 10 'i *q"oit9 , .r/.. . . ' i". s>rf* S'O'' o^T 

-bull li-sbislcnl a fi^li nl auoBmyvio ai so'ioafc c»xi* *«riT •42*' 

*on 50^ 'iexX^'i 10I Tis^mq eff^ ai 'iO irxlHlqaoo T:o XXicf 9x1* ni bonisii 


.liiter a careful exaiainB.tion oi' the record \iS are of 
the opinion t.lia.t juatioe will be "boet s erred by a retrial of 
tMs caiiso. Frota the comEifincement of the hearing until the 
oourt had inc'icated Mb conclusions at the end of the evidence, 
"but ninety minutes had elap&ed. Sither tlae attorneys for "both 
sid.^3 were unprepared to properly present the evidence "bearing 
upon the material questions of fact in the cautje, or they failed 
to properly present the proof. The scope of the alleged oonr.piracy 
clearly appears from the plsndings, yet« the entire toetimony of 
complainant is covered in t.o and one-half images ox" the a'ba tract, 
the testimony of defendant Beierwalter covers but one and one-half 
pages, defendant Fischer's testimony take& up a like part of the 
abstract, and the evidence of defexidant iin^xiQX covers lesE than a 
page of the abstract. 

We do not think that it would be et-^ui table co the parties 
for us to attempt to pass upon the merits of this cause, upon the 
evidence introduced • 

Tne decree of the Circuit court of Cook county is reversed, 
and the cause is remanded for a new trial. 


oullivan, P. J., and Vriand, J., oonciir* 

1:0 91JS sw trcaot oHi lo ao k:i imlavKx^ Xulsa, .. .. ..« ^,. 

,eoiiebiV3 QiH lo bit* «iij{ tfM axK>lai»XSMoo si/i b«:fsox5«i fexixi i^tiiroo 

bdlifit ir®jD[# ^o «i»Mif,«o i)ii.t Hi foal! lo s^aai^mBtip lAtrntam &ii:$ actisj 

to xsiomii'Mit ©'xi^no oii* »si'o^i «esfii6«eX^ »di* moil: araogqa YlrtssXo 

tdoni^atfB oris lO 8»a^ IXarf-ono feOR ovi'^ ai fes>'£»Toe si itmtiiMlqs&oo 

lXiSJfC~tjao bfij3 ano iisd a'ccw© t^g^Iawtioiaff ^ar-tfeas'tuh lo xtiomtiuet »dii 

Js Oiuii aeaX S'xaTfoo Tt£i;i3JtiV, Jxiaftnaldb to aotishiva erf* fjoa ^ioat^sdei 

*io?itis<ia 9srf* "Jo 0S*!<I 

eiftf noq« ,9tjB.Q0 eiiij "io ts^ili&m atf,i floqjj 8Sfi«i 03 *«(iHWvr#« ot ajj not 

tb«8TST!stai Tj^auoo siooj lo ixuoo iUJ9tlO 9iii 'to si»ro(f>b arff 

tlalTi w»n J3 :col h&httaitmt si oawso s»i:i:^ bxia 





Hms «. «L.H. ^^^^^^^^ I 2 9 I .A. 6 3^ 


James P» Vl/alsh, plaintiff and cross-defendant (laerein- 
after called appellant), appaalB from a decretal order entered 
in a divorce proceeding* 

Appallaat filed Mb complaint for divorce, in which he 
charges Mary B. Walch, defendant and or obb- plain tiff (hereinafter 
called appellee), with adultery, cruelty and d esertion, and with 
the procx»ring of deeds to his property through fraud end without 
good or valualBle consideration* Appellant prayed for a dlivoroe, 
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 allegatione as to desertion, cruelty and 
adultery, and alleges that the consideration for the transfer of 
appellant ♦& property to her and appellant in joint tenancy was 
love and affection. Appellee filed a "Cross-Complaint for Separate 
Maintenance and Aocoimting," in which she alleges that appellant 
had "been guilty of extreme cruelty and had absented himself frcm 
appellee, leaving her destitute and without means with which to 
support herself or to pay the expenses of the household: that she 
and sgppellant are the owners, as joint tenants, of their home and 

.YTliUOO 2OO0 '^X) I *v 

^8 9 .A. I e S \ .,,,,.,,, '^ - --^^'^ 


6&noln9 'iof)io l£2i»:co9Jb B moil sXes^q^ tdo^IIaqqs &«Il£9 isits 

t-^tii.b&&oo'xq 9'0'xoYib a at 

ati iioiil.v isi «3>oxovi:& "oi iRialiisaoo aiui baJCil JfwjXXeqqA 

*jtrorf*iw biV3 bx/fial jdEswoTn<f x^^®^o*3ct[ sM od aftsob Tto awl'moc^iq oxi;t 

«90'iov±F> a to'i" baX'S'^q iasXIaqqi; •jraoi.taiofeiao&o oIcfax;Ij3V io boog 

aol;toxiujrtJn[-t xts lo'i ^afoasb add- 'io noiiflXIyofiso btia oolaBlsavt 9di lol 

T:o iswEttr. Qdi ul .Tavieost a to Sa^siinloqq.a &iii lo'i. brus ^»4Bia& 
bits -^^Xwi/^o (flolcfiaaab o4 «!« a«oi:*fl39XX^ air!* woxflab exia 99lil9qqsi 

•ifl«He3 lO'i tniflXqLiaoD-aeOTiO" jb b&li'i ©©IX^qqA .nol^oel'liB bxic avol 

JnsXIeqqjs ^sxfi' '39S3XX*5 8xfa doMTi? nl ^^-galimfOooA bsm oonans^niaM 

«©t£l "iloBmiri bfi>*fltsa€f« b£il bxis "igiMosio ^tasrixB Io -^;^Xixr3 ii9©cf bjsil 

o^ iioldw dilw '&tUi»ia iucsiixw bam Biui iiaab i&rl j^ns^rB&Z xQeLlaqnR 

fida iadi jbXoiIsax/orf adi Io aearitjcxi -rfd ^juq o;t %o 'iXaaxari Jtioqgtfa 

of an undivided two-thirds interest in the premises known as 
4432-4436 A'sat Madison street* Chicago; that appellant was 
cananitted to the Elgin State Hospital for treatment i and later 
tJhTouj^ her efforts » was paroled to herj that through her care 
and nursing he has recovered mentally and physically* and ths,t 
he caused the properties to he conveyed to hisiscir and her as 
joint tenants to show his appreciation of the tender ©are and 
nursing she gave him during his illneSB} that ehe is a iBeauty 
operator and conducts a beauty shop in Chicago; that she has been 
compelled to purchase necessary equipment and has beetle indebted 
for the saffie in the sum of $594, and she aeks for an order requiring 
appellant to pay for the said 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 Sim or stuas of money, and at suich times as shall to Your Honors 
seem meetf for her support;" "that em account may be taken g^' all 
moneys du© or 0f\7ing each to the other of the parties hereto; that 
tm aocoimt be taken as to the ownership of the Ford Automobile 
herein mentioned, and upon a proper hearing that the same may be 
awarded to thie croae-plaintiff ; that a proper and juet division of 
all property, real and personal, may be made between the parties." 
la appellant's answer he denies the charges of cruelty and desertion, 
and denies that appellee is entitled to support frcn him or to any 
of the relief prayed for* 

Aa order vnas entered tliat the complaint and the croas-ocm- 
plaisat be heard at the same time*^ 

After tjie trial court had heard evidence bearing upon the 
complaint and the eross-complaint, he entered the following decreet 

»>■■■'■ ^rmLl»qq.n i^i ia^issxhiO ,^90it;t2 xioaJtbaM iB^'!- a£i>l^«g5.^fr 

SIB© isd rf^,woxri^ d-«j£;^ IXSjeC oS' bieXoiflii ajsw tat-so'i'ia icxl rfsi?OTtti# 

B« tad b£tB 'xlsaai/i' oJ &&T|Qviiot -.. ... ..oti'x&^<0'xq_ osli beasjzi ^:; 

i$,-m.e«»«f ff «i arf« ;ta«C;f laa'jtnXfi aid ^aitttb aiA ffrxr^ &d» jiaiawatt 

fe9#€r jfoiijc oiGoosd' a^ifC 5ae ittsmiivpo Y'3:Bae»o»n sasxfoai/g: o;t bs£i»q:«oo 

SJisi^i:«4>®*A ttob^o Ojb toX iJ^-^-'s f^ii'y f:>ac ^^'?3* ■"'.c mwa orl* at 9assB sdi xol 

-ooa i£j8fii effa *jact* I'^i^j' .Kwagiilpf^ ^ . .Mi;t xol XJWI o* ^nalXeqq* 

&dS, 9t£asr.»d ^toqqaa yX^^tfrmq es bsx aaditiuwtf Tj;Jjjfl9tf jioua iii ^uaii 

.r..£a il^ iHS3[s^ 9tS.x^ Sbmohqc :_• :-;.._- ;*ico<iqpLra .... -0- ti&&m mooa 
to celsaivib ifewfc toe *i9t£o*si5 ^ ^rext* ri'iiitfiiyBX<|-aaaTa aitUj&^ Juafeit^WB 

8ri4 noqif Bftliiistf soi^.\.:.:^ ■•■;... o-r .v,f{ ct--j:i«!oo X«i'x* aiit "X&i'L' 


"Decree for Divorce* 

"This day come again the oross-complainaat, Marie S» lalalii 
by ijcel 3. Pearson and Edward J. Green i her attorneys, and the 
cross-defendant, Jp.taes P. Walsh, by Frank T. Jordan and Forest A. 
Sing, hie attorneyjs, and it appearing to the Oourt tlmt personal 
service, and due notice of the pendency of tMs cause, was had» 
according to the i^tatute in such case made and provided* 

'•.\nd the Court having heard the teattmony taken in open 
Cotart in support of orosa-complninant* b, and having heard 
the argtttnents of Coxinsel, and beini; fully advised in the premises, 
Doth Find: 

•1. That the Court har- jurisdiction of the parties hereto* 

and the subject matter hereof; 

•2» That the cross-oomplainant, Marie E. Vialsh, and tha 
cross -defendant, James P. ¥alah, are and h-ive been actual resid- 
ents of the Couiifey of Cook and State of Illinois, for more than 
one (1) year last past, prior to the coimaencement of the above 
entitled caueej that the parties hereto vrere lavifully Joined in 
marriage or the 12th day of October, 1931, at Crovm Point, Indiana J 
that no child or children isrere born to said parties aa the result 
of said marriage I 

'*3* That subsequent to their intermarriage, the cross- 
defendant, James P. Vtalsh, has been gijilty of ejctreme and repeated 
cruelty toward the cross-complainant, Marie S. Walshi 

*'4* That the parties hereto are the owners, as joint 
tenants, of the following described real estate, together -with 
the irni^rovements thereon: 

*(l) (Here follows legal description of property) Further 
known as 4436-4438 /est Madison Street, Chicago, Illinoie. 

•♦(S) (Here folloiire legal description of property) luxther 
3aioiira as 5509 Bohlandar .\v9nue, Berkeley, Cook County, Illinois* 

"S* That parcel 1, above described* is free and clear of 
encumbr&iice; that parcel 2, above described, v/Mch is the homestead 
of the parties hereto, is subject to the balance of a purchase 
money ucrtgage of approximately ??1400»00. 

•^6. rhat all of the nbove renl estate is nov; under the 
management of one Charles Mallon, ^ho v.aa heretofore appointed 
Beoeiver of the same by this COurt; and that said Charles Mallon, 
as Heceiver is now collecting the rents, issues, and profits 

"7. That the parties hereto are also the OTsners of a 
certain 1934 ?ord Coupe Automobile, model V.40, Sngine Ho. 757209, 
wloich is in the poasesaion of the cross-defendant, James P. ..alsh. 

"8. That the bonds of Bmtrimony, now existing between the 
cross-complainant, Marie E. >!»alsh, and the cross-defendant, James 
P. V.'alsh, ought to be diecolved* 

this Court, by virtue of the power and authority therein vested, 
and the Statute in such case miade and provided, doth order, adjudge, 
and decree that the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between 

*Q&TQrM rot a&VQ^mil!^ v 
isiiaXiv.. «:: Qi.i.-iM « dXissniisX'^KOo-'aBoxG ®ii.- n ;;..-=? ojaes Tg*b' aiitf* 

tbeii asw ^3Bifi,o strf;}- "io ^ _ lo 0|>l,}g,ii ©jr^ fens t*oiTi"aa 

tb'^bix&tq bus efc^ia »m*o deua nx s^^^b^Q 9tf{# oi ^albiooos 

jloarrflrl Ts.t^Ai« ^o»ttf^' ' '^ 

»-'/octfs oric* ic .;) 9i';t oi xottq «d^aag: ^asl :u39Y (Xj ano 

^swfix&xsl r i-'^ «{Xc".*I tifxfocfoO "io xi-sE) sli^ll iixii no rj 

;^Xus©^ fi., , ■' ' -''-^r '•> "-^r,:^? ^.^r,-:- .,,v-',r >^r,; .;jQ fexifio ^.-l: ,;<^^iJ 

!to '»5»X£f brts ©©i£% ai (J-r.:':. '- -•■—■:' ^l X»s"K.r." :^ -.-•'" , g* 
&B©*8r.Xiiori iJif? n.r rloMv; ,f «S X«o^ j ooii.-Ji<iCtUOK9 

.on, COM*! ■v^Xsi.sailscciqqs to ©sflaJ-iom Xl^noa 

3ri^ labim wen ai «jJa#«» X'let srecf ■ sd* '^o XX.« ^JBXfT .d" 

,KoX '-riO &i*5a *erf* bMJS 5>t'itfoO airid- id masa 9x1^ 'Jo i^virjosR: 

B lo a-SBXi'.vo e^s^f osXb a'ijs o;t»-x&xi B»i;4*iii<i Oii* J .tufl' .V" 
*d[aXB\)' •? aensl « ;M:usbnstel>-uBoi:o &l£i^ 1» a6l«seauoq esli ai si iisJU-Cv 

,fof#B&v nio'xsri* ic^fX'xoxL-u.s bns lowoq Qdi lo ouii'ilv vcf t^xnoD aixC* 
,©gbirtf>J5» taobto xfSob ,b3faxvo'xq ba& ebam saBO xfoxra ax si^sJiaiS edi baa 

the cross-complainant, Mario S. Walsh, and the orosB-daf sndant, 
James ?. -^alsh, l)e and the same axe hereby dissolred, and the 
game are riiBsolTed accordLngly* 

«2. IT IS FURTHER ORiril?!:!), ADJTJD(II3I) AlTD L^IGHEFa that 
the oroBsodefendant, James 9* Walsh, pay to the CTOBs>oomplainant» 

Ma.rie K. 'alsii, the sum of Thirty-nine I'ollsa:' s p a?-' and for her 
Court Reporter's bill, for taking of evidence on the hearing of 
the ahove entitled cause* the znme to "be paid forthiffith, upon 
the entry of this Lecree* 

"3, IT lb ::'D;:TiEIE CISC'ITEiD , AI;JUIjG:D MD ISCKSBD that the 
Gross-defendant, James P. Walsh, pay to Axel y,t Pearson, an.i 
Ed"ward J. Green, as attorneys for seid c rosB-complainant, Marie 3« 
Walsh, the sum of Pive Iltuidrod Dollars in full for eerviooR 
rendered in the above untitled cause, the saioe to he paid forth- 
with, upon the entry of this Decree. 

"4. IT IS I'^in-^THliHl ORXToZraD, ADJTJDCrj) MT) .T/'CHJriT) that 
the Court horehy retains jurisdiction in the above entitled cause 
as to all property settlements and adjustments, and division of 
rents and other laattirs portEiiniUt: to the property of the pai-tiea 
hereto, until the further order of thia 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 craisiderable 
evidence in support of Ms charge that appellee was giailty of 
adultery, the trial Judge, in the decretal order, does not pass 
upon the merits of the coaplaintnor make any order in reference 
to it. The decretal order finds that appellant was guilty of 
extreme and repeated cruelty and grants appellee a divorce upon 
that grotjad, although she did not ask for a divorce and her cross- 
complaint is one for separate maiatenanse and an accounting. If 
the wife was guilty of adultery, the fact, if it be a fact, that 

the husband was guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty would not be 

a rufficient recriminatory defense/his complaint for divorce on the 

sTOUiad of adultery. ( .Uecke r v. xieoker, 193 111. 285; 2ijsmerman v. 
Zimmerman, 242 111. 5o2.) 

vve isay say that after a careful examination oi the entire 
record we are satisfied that the cause waB not properly and fairly 
tried and that Justice will be best served by a retrial of &he 



■T.@ti -xcl r>.\,f5 '5? t a "T?.;..Io<!; ariia-\:,3"rMT iO nttx.-.; 

Slid' J'jp/r;? :T''!v,-KD ■ . c,i 1l1 , «w" 

^r..«^ < fir) '•',-, -o-"' , " V 'TieT. »*njebfls^86-Q»0_a» 

-■a-tei'X Hut fil att£fXi}C^ foei'xfefaiitK ovifi 1o mia 9ti<t trial^W 

;■ . ■ : £il.ffl ,=^" 

irrl^ vrsiv aif^ nl » »«>s*ir«vft'x ©cf 39i&9 & ail* ioAt sbsmmb aol^e^t *atld' 

, iol;tKiMi»o ejtri 1o XX« 

lo Y.dXx)Lr?5 3.SW JualXsqqB *«;^* sftfiil Tufrx© Xs*9'S£59f) StrfT .ii o:^ 

rioq» a©'?to-, its 'td'XfiWTco &9*BeMj©i£ 6nf! amoi^xa 

-8aoi:o norf feufi soiKOvito ^ te% sEs« jroa feJtfe ©jDte d-guoi' /OTts *eJS;t 

9ri;t no fto-xovi' •:.':j(sXq:iaB» aXf(\»«3fia ts.b Yio^««-i^^^o<>'i insxoi'ttsi'ii a 


issues raised T)y the oomplalnt and croEo-complaint. As tevidlixg to 

show that it would lie iiijhlj inequita"ble to perait th£ present 

decretal order to stand, vio cite the following: Paragraph (5) 

of the complaint charges that =^-.:pellee wilfully deserted appellant 

without any reasonahle cause a.'zd v/i '.hout fault on his part. In a 

colloqu3'- "between the oonnBel for "both p;;u:ti©,i axid "he trial court 

just before the taking of eyiaence, couuBel for appellee stated 

that appellant could hare a divorce on the charge rnaoe in para- 

grajjh (5) at once, that there vrould oe no controversy as to that 

chargfc, and that thp court could ti^tole the property rights. The 

court then indicated th^^t where a divorce could be p-ranted upon 

some ground other than adultery the parties should "forget the 

adultery." Ootmsel for appellant refused to waive the adiiltery 

chcirge. As the case may he tried a/^ain we refrain from coacienting 

on the evidence or expressing any opinion as to the merits of the 

case . 

The decretal order of the Superior court of ''•oo'k c oumty 

is raveraed* and the cause is remanded for a nev; trial as to the 

complaint and crobc-complaint. 

EF;M/:JfDj.:i> TOR A ifiiw riilAL. 

Sullivan f ?• J.» and l<'riend» J., ooacur* 




'.n . .;oJ:; 

#.sxl* Off aa T(;^*x&-votJJ«o 


:y:U n'59'i^itarf ■'jsirpoXiGO 

v^{^»^ air'^ii antral Ifitfe^aefc ©^ 



et al«. 

Appellees, v 




.ppexlant. . >29 0I.A. 603 


This is an interlooutory appeal from the following order: 

"This cause coming on to be he«rd upon the present-'tion of the 
verified complaint filed herein which complaiflft has been read in 
open court by counsel for the plaintiffs and from which the Court 

"That it has jurisdiction of the subject matter hereof; 
that to serve notice on the defendant herein would unnecessarily 
and prejudicially delay this proceeding; that the plaintiffs. 
United Dairy Company, a corporation and Milk Wagon Drivers' Union 
of Chicago, Local 753, are threatened with irreparable and 
injury unless this Honorable Court shall restrain and enjoin the 
defendant, Kaufman Serman, from soliciting, selling, serving or 
attempting to solicit, sell or serve to the customers and consumers 
enumerated in 'Schedule A' attached heretoj? milk, oresm,butter, 
cheese, eggs and other dairy products produced or distributed by 
the plaintiff. United Dairy Company, a corporation. 

"It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that a 
writ of injunction issue forthwith commanding the defendant, 
Kaufman Berman, th^t he cease, desist and refrain from calling 
upon, soliciting, serving, attempting to sell or serve the 
customers and consumers mentioned in 'Schedule a' attached hereto* 

"It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the 
bond of the plaintiff. United Dairy Company a corporation, be filed 
in the sum of CfSBO.OO. 

"It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that no bond 
be required for the plaintiff. Milk Wagon Drivers' Union of Chicago, 
Local 753. 

Enter: Grover C» Hiemeyer, 
Chicago, Mov. 31, 1936, 

The decree was entered in an action brought bgainet 

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 

wagon driver, be enjoined from delivering "milk, cream, butter, 

cheese, eggs" and other dairy products produeed or distributed by 





► YTsiUOO AijQli 


809 .A.I0G2* 

4ii/llif9iM HAM'IUAJI 

I ball 

;l09T9ri is^ifJi*^ ffosj^di/g adit lo xrolJOiitvsitiii/j; s«ri ifi JaiiT" 

> n J ;' ('! !'f f-T.iT 

noiiiU 'sTavX-cc: ^vc;-, iX^ 
9ri* aioQfl'? ■ .test XJ. 

«rioi*sioqToo jb ,^xx.s<?ff!oO Y3:XsU Ijei^XiiU ,ilX;^ixisiq gu*J 


^o lie- 

ricf el *I" 

9if* *5!fi;f ftasTOSb bxi.? ftesfewffcs ^fo«T9fcTo i9dtru\ si *I" 

,00,Oa^i- \o auLfS 9ri3- ni 
bttiod on tfiufJ l)©9rro«ft l>n« b^r^bu'ibn ^be.i9biG t9dt^u\ ei ^I" 

#53 *? I.SOOJ 

:;iXXM .f>n? 4aoX*=''-rogi:oo .e ,^-sqMioO ifxXJSC beifXflU »fl* y^'*' ^-cxfifc/ial 9l> 
al •frsd'sToqTOonXfly t^CV XjbooJ ^o-^jSoXriO lo floinU e'lsvlTC noaef 
>{Xlifl s ,tnfitn9l9f) ©rfS toe'* x^^«? stlXd'ni.'iXq tbsXit tnXjeXqmoo dxf* 
4i«*d-jjcf 43IF9T0 ,iXi!n« sciieviXoJt) moa^ £i«alotn» »cf ^m^-rixb flog^w 
Yd !y8:fi/cfXT;t8Xft to Raoafccxcr a^ouboicr Tii«£' T9rf*o ba» "aas© taassilo 


the plaintiffs. United Bairy Company, a oorpor^^tion, to various 
persons, oalled 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 notice, nor why plaintiff wp.s not required to furnish 
a bond, as required by statute. lo "Schedule A" is attached to 
the order, as stated therein. Therefore, the order is meaningless* 
The order granting the injunction is reversed* 






Apiaellant, ) 


▼ B, ) 


CITY QW CiilCAOO, a kuaicipal ) 

Corporation, et al,, ) j 

Appellee.. ) 29 I. A, 60 4^ 


December 31, 1935, the complainar;t , iiinriie Ryan, I'iled 
her laill in the Superior court ol' Cook county in behalf ol' her- 
eell* and other citizens aiid taxpayers, averring tix&t the act of 
the General Assembly ol* June 19, 1935, known as the PolioeirLen 
and firemen hetirement Act ( Smith-Hurd 111, Re-v, Stat,, 1935, 
ehap, 24-Jr, par, 51), and the airiendruent to section 12 of the 
CItxI Service Act of the saiue date were unconstitutional and roftd 
ae violative of the rigl^its of each fireraen and policemen; that 
notvrithstariding the fact that defendant City and other defendants 
were about to put these acts into effect and esqpend large sums of 
public money and subject the City to grave financial liabilities 
by 60 doing, to the damage of complainant and persons similarly 
situated. Ihe Dill prayed for an injunction, arid complainant made 
a motioxi that the injunct .on should issue,^ Defeiidants then made 
a counter-motion to strike the complaint upon the ground, aioong 
others, that the bill was without equity and the court without 
jurisdiction; that coiaplainants hiid an adequate reuiady 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 Jiiotion of defendants 
the Supreme court transferred the cause to this court. 

In Malloy v . City o f Chija^^o, 365 111, 604, the Supreme 
eourt, at the suit of fireiiien and policemen of the City of Chicago, 



H -y, '"TV 

^08 .A.IOeS 

;t:"£> IX'sacA 


/4AYH IfXMIiltf 

-) oMI r i"«.-» -Tr.>, 

.aCGi , .Ji :r.:. .v*;;, , III l>«iiH-xi*x ■ 

JbAoT Irm^ LenoJMtJ..'J Itttaooafj »iav a;^j3b 9ii(*>... 
J^* ;u©iJiaoiIoq Ijob aBjLO^ii'r Jiui/K 'to aJ-m 

' J^oA 9olri©8 UriQ 
©ri is loir a« 

sbcio. &ni..aieLqm.oo him ^notioitulal ob To't b-:-X:titq Ilia srlT .tet&utl^ 

^wr.xiiflw ituoo QiiJ i>n* xiluiyo isjetiilv saw Xixcf ©fi;t i&iii ^ataciio 

.8*6 ,wbX ^« ^ftoiiiisi 9ie.up»&B £i* &til « *as fUjt' Xqnioo iBdi •,aolioibeltut 

•xttbto OB b&t&ici» baa 8injibn»'l»b 'lo aoliom sAi bsalstat^a iiuoo 9dl 

Son bib ii. ias-ii -xnttQ oils ai ^silhnl't -^Xess^toxa ,XXirf 9iii ^alaetamlb 

od- bBSjsetiqii ^asnJtjiiiXqiaoa »ti'x .aoiis-^up lessoi^uit^^BtUiO ^as acqu aaaq 

a*ni3l>n»lftf> 'io noiJoia nu .tsXl't siac' s't«\ti(i eiBdv tftioo 9/n»aqua 9x1* 

^^nuoo BliiS oJ ©ajJiiO Oii* h&it9'tBimit ixaoo smetcfuB »A) 

0sa»iqu& 9di ^P'OQ .XXI 666 .o^jsclH O to \:iiO , r ^ceXXfc-^ nl 

jOi^aoiriU "to \ii^ •xi* 'io neosaoiXoq bi^ iromeii't 'to *iua ail* i*. , Jittoo 

recently rendered aii opinion and entered a Judi^ent expressly fold- 
ing that the act of June 19th, known as the Policemen and i^'ireiuen 
Retirement Act, is unconstitutional and void« As tiie motion to 
strike admitted tJie allegations ol" the bill and the act in queation 
is now declared unconstitutional and void, it follows that there 
was equity in compl;iinant 's suit to enjoin the expenditure of pub- 
lic money in carrying the act iiito effect. In Fer^UB y, Husaeli . 
270 111. 304, the Supreme court said -ath reference to a Biriiiiojp 

"We have repeatedly held that taxpayers aay resort to a 
court of equity to prevent the mieapplication of putiic funds, and 
that this ripjit is based upon the taxpayers' equitable owriersxiip 
of euch funds &nd their liability to replenish the public treasury 
for the deficiency which would be caused by the iiJLsappropriation, 
(Colton V. lianchett, 13 111, 515; Perr^,^ v. i\.iniieair, 42 id. IGO; 
Giiestnut^ood v. Hood, 63 id, 132; Jackson v, Isorris, 72 id, 364; 
MoCord r. Pike, 121 id, 238; Littler v. Ja^Tie, 124 id. 123; dtevens 
▼. 3t, fcary's Training School, 144 id. 336; City of Chicago v, 
KicholB, 177 id. 97; Adams v, Brenan, 177 id, 194; Lurke v. brii-»*iy, 
203 id. 323; Jones v. O'Connell, 266 id. 443.)" 

Other cases in whioli similar suits by taxpayers have been 
upheld are McAlpine v. Dimiok . 326 111. 240; Cooot v. Board of 
CoHtmiesioners of Cook County . 273 111, App, 75, and Leii'evre v . 
Counts? of Lee ^ 269 111, App, 443. 

The decree of the Superior court is therefor* reversed and 
the cause is reri.anded with directions to the trial court to enter 
an order requiring the defendants to answer the bill, 


O'Connor and EcSurely, JJ, , oonour. 

'bLoM iL&aQiqx.9 #a®s^&at * fe^asda. .- ...... ..qo cm b»f%n9% xlJ-asoan 

a»iii9iit. bsm rtf»a»o llo't' «M e^j nwoaai ,sii9l 9iujt 'to iHM exli imli gai 

»rr»r. ,i)loT brtp fiuiols-ir^ilaiiooajsr |>ert£le«f) won el 

. XI s^aaA/fl ^ y , , a y,'^-x»^t£ .. . ■■ .^so ni •^saoin oil 

•fciiiaua *i od aoiisi o-xquS fiiit' ,*C>€ .1X1 OVS 

I5'iwe>i»9'-i:«^ ollduq ©xii xiaxi: dojLrs 'to 

ji-jf. ,l>i SV , Billed ,T ho;. ; . , ,v boo«fiwa*a9Jt'D 

,v isa«OJt*iO 'to xilQ ;a££ .«- i'iX ,Xfc ..a^1T B'v;t«Jii »J-S ,v 

,xX»vxnti .V 9:liii(l jl^GX .&! VVX .rujaa^it ,t ;fe .I)! VVX ,alor(oil4 

"(.£^* .&i 6aS ,XX»flac.O* . voT. jese .fci 802 

.-,^* .qqA «£XI <8aK ,Sj »a , "tp v;»fiuoQ 
,%uoa^p , ,1.1. ,x;'£»«*'So^ *•"* aonaeO'O 




Appellants » ^ 




MAl^JAir BABB, administratrix of the I ^ y^ ^ a i. 

estate of :uiRirB3ST S, V.ABBt deceased? ^ ^ -^ ^ -. 

Appellee • 

9 0I.A. 60 


This is an appeal from an order entered setting aside the 
three judgments hy defaiilt entered upon the rerdict of a jury on 
May 29, 1935, by Judge Sohwabat The action of the plaintiffs was 
for personal injuries and property damage alleged to have "been 
sustained "by them in an automolaile accident on October 27, 1934, 
as a result of the negligence of defendant's intestate^ who died 
in the same accident* Skt motion by defendant to set the same 
aBide was not filed until January 17 » 1936. The judgments were 
in favor of Walter Bornman for $2»50O, of Anna Bomman for $3,000, 
and Alfred Lexoa for Ol»500« As the motion was made more than 30 
days after the entry of the judgment the motion wds in the nature 
of a petition for writ of error coram nobis » as provided at common 
law and under sec. 72 of the Civil Practice act. (111. utate Bar 
Btats., 1935, chap. 110, p* 2448. Jones 111. Stat. Ann. 104, 072») 
Defendant filed her petition January 17, 1936p praying that these 
judgments be set aside and stating the facts upon whioh she relied. 
Plaintiffs answered adjaitting some of the facts and denying others. 
The court, after extended consideration and hearing evidence, on 
March 21, 1936» entered an order granting the motion. A prior 


»I!rK.U'X 2000 ^TdW.: 

%0b ,A.IOQ^ 



tMSX ,V£; XQfieioQ no ;tii&b4ioo« 9XlrfOB»iwj8 K£ ai a&di x(S b^atatteua 

©•Jaw a^nsiag&if^ orfT .aefiX tVX TC'r.^i/acX XI ^m/ 5»Xi!l; sfoii a«w mbias 

«0O0tSt io"i rtaBonoa: jBrotA lo fOOS«S^ t&t namtxoW. t&^Lp}i.' tc torr-1 al 

OS tmdi 9'xofflt 9bsM saw aolt^oai erf* a.. ,005«X'': 10^ fmx9J. batH.^ &ae 

Q'tu$s.a edi di. bj^w noi^om edi ieiQtss^^ul axli lo -^Jfso sdi x&i'i& ax»b 

aosamoa is bsbtrotq, as < a JLdoia jBW'ipjg to-xta It© ikrvf tot nolJiiaq ja lo 

isS ©#iJ*i. .XXI} ♦*©« aoitfoKi'i XlTiO edi t& S? *osa i^vbnjj baa wsX 

(iS'i'O ,K>X »fi«A .*»#^ .XXI asfiot « S^*S »q: <OXX *qmds> xdt^l t»6ijsi<i 

iSasrf* Snrf;* ijWi^Kiq |6C€X «Vi ic'i.3«; itoi*i;f»q Tied bs£it itusbtiQloii 

tbeilai odo rIoM'w aoqu &io.L,1 adi -gatiBi^ bas sbiaxs *oa ycf a^nsjagbwl, 

• 8-c9ii*o sfliTjneb baa a*oj8l arli lo sona sifiJb*;Miabis bsrfswaoG Ql*3:iJ-n.tsX'I 

no «©o«9biv© snJti^srf bm^ «ol*si9&ieaeo bsbna;^^© -loits ^iruoo ©xfT 

noitrq A .KoiJod oifc^ -<-.?,- ns boiaias tde.Ql ,X3 rlo^icM 


order of default in the same case had \>een previously entered 
•berore Judge Kelly of the c^uperior court May 28 » 1935, "but no 
judgments were entered pursuant thereto. March 27, 1936, upon 
motion of defendant made hef ore Judge Kelly, in which substantially 
the same facts were sulDiaitted as Ijefore Judge Schwaha, the default 
order entered "by Judge Kelly was also set aside. Plaintiffs hare 
appealed from these orders, v/hile legal propositions are argued at 
length In the voluminous "briefs submitted, the material facts dis- 
closed "by the record are few and almple. Only as to one important 
matter is an issue of fact raised* 

In summary the facts appear to "be that plaintiffs filed 
their suit in the Guperior court April 22 » 1935, ana the case was 
assigned to the calendar of Judge Bchwa'ba which was calendar No«7« 
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 dey of the summons, it was duly served 
upon defendant* Under the rules of the Superior court answer was 
due on or before May 22, 1935, prior to the hour of ten a« m* As 
to whether the answer Vi?as diily filed within that time is the only 
materiel issue of fact in this case. Defendant offered evidence 
tending to show that her answer was actually filed vil th the deputy 
clsrk in the office of the clerk May 22p 1935, before ten a* m. 
Such answer in on file, but the stainp of the clerk and the record 
made by the clerk of the court indicate that it was not filed until 
May 23, 1935, at 2 104 p. m» Plaintiff a .denied tliat the answer 
was presented for filing prior to May 28, 1935, at 2»04 p«. u» The 
stamp of the clerk and the entry in the register tend to suatsdn 
this contention. Plaintiffs therefore deny that there was any 
error of fact and charge the defendant was lacking in diligenes 
in failing to file her answer in proper tJae and in filing it 

bsts-tna vXtii/oivsTq need" bBii aaso shlbo &iii ai ilUBtsb lo n^bto 

OK iwcf «3£eX «SS YjsiS ;^^«0D toi:T:9qi;S siltr "io tJ^XaJl sigb/jT; arsox'^'d' 

rjoqcr ^dSOX ^VS rfot^M ^o^stsffi- ^nsjuatyq f>©i©*xie «18W a;Jtt8£aigfojcrt, 

^(>;XX-.i;,tnjf5^?!tfwfi rfoMvif al ,yJ^*"^^ »sbwT, ©Te'tstf ©f^jsia i^ustu&t&b lo ndid-em 

. ■., -..^i'li u».o v,i.-iO ,t.a.Hix!.i.';. viu. vv...'.. v.... .,y(ij.-..odi -^tf bsaolo 

rijfjw ©aA!t> Si|{* &HJB tSeeX *^i£ Xisq^ ^tcwoo toi'xa^ua 9if^ ni ihim xi&iii 

"^sb ^; ■" '• ■'— -,- ■"■'■^qitii &sii 'io 3i'35»i» «iri;J XfS bowfiRx a-^wr aHoaamfo 

nxuij -•'■■'t.-uf , v.- ii'xci . .at^i %0£ t^-.iM ^ItfcaBCXff ^' aJt .n^^Xil: a.9W 3 hse. edi 

b©Trx8« Ai.Xii'b ajcw t.t t^nosmmt &d^ to -^h xixtjiin »&» 0S x&ttq, nxeb OS 

3*sw TSv;aK« ^ijw^» «oi:x»«f0G ©£l;f lo asXwt euSi -s«»&aU •ixxijbaslob noqu 

Xiao sivj oi Qfiixtf i'jBffcf fl;M,ti;w h©l* T -^lifb 8iW ^ftwaxu; &H^ i&si&^dw «i 
9«jti»blT9 baT«f>Ti« *m&«al:«€ *saao aM,t fii d^sl to oiseat l^itsiam 

. , neif s'lo'tacT <e5©X *^S t-^^M afieXo «»rl;> lo solll© siW tii ^-reXo 

131:00 J * '-^ri^- iMB iisio Bili lo ^)BtB^e od^ :^ksfl tsXi't no «i ismBitu lioit^ 

liitiis bdiil Hn asm ti iMtii &i&ckbeil ;J:cwoo srf* Id a£isXo sif* ^cf d&jMi 

©flT •«£ •£! i^OiS i iS ,:.:c;&I «6a TEJisM o;l cox'iCi gfi^'C-t'^ ^©^ bsiusasiq saw 

Kijc^toja oi bxtsttf t&isil^nx &&i at f^*"® «»ii* b«fi :it&Xo sri* "lo q;xac*9 

Xms ^m aietli ix',d$ xrtob ateT:ar»di attijni«n ,mtiaeim6 alrli 

SfifitJsiXiib ni s«i3lo«X SB?.' *W5bij^t>»b eji;f e»a«iJo okb io^l lo ttoiaa 


eight days after the return date without leare of court or notice 
to counsel > and further in negleoting to take notice of proceedingo 
which had taken place in the cause until seven months after the 
entry of the same* 

May 28, 1935 » plaintiffs, evidently under the mistaken be- 
lief that the caae 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 
order of default for failure of defendant to answer the s\immons. 
As alrea<^ 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 hy Judge Kelly on April 15, 1936» 

May 29, 1935, plaintiffs, apparently thinking that the 
proceeding "before Judge Kelly on the day "before was irregular, 
appeared "before Judge 3chwa"ba and secured another order entering 
the default of the defendant. ITo further proceedings were had 
"before Judge Schwa"ba until June 14 » 1935, when plaintiffs again 
appeared "before him. A jury was impaneled, heaird the evidence, 
returned verdicts a ssessing damages, and the court, also upon 
motion of plaintiffs, entered the judgoients which were afteinitrard 
set aside. Neither defendant nor her attorneys had knov«ledge of 
the entrance of either one of these defaults or notice or knowledge 
of the proceedings before Judge Sohwa"ba May 29, 1935 » and June 14 
thereafter. The facts as recited were disclosed to them upon an 
examination of the docket of the courts kept in the of a ce of the 
clerk of the Superior court, on the afternoon of January 14, 1936. 
That examination disclosed the t wo d ef aults and the three judgments. 
The evidence indicates that an examination of the s ame do:;ket on 
the following morning at 8«55 a. m. , January 15, 1936, disclosed 
an additional entry in the docket which was not therein on the 

®oilo0 tro tiisno to syj?9X ^uori;Jivi^ oiab jt)«i/;t©'i QXf;^ i9;?la a^flb iritis 
9iS* xsitu sditt&sR a©vse tliaw ®a«Bo «4# «Jt »oflXq; ussC^^ &sii ifolriw 

«ajai:^^i;55i d9^ am osftw sgijift ^ o* &3flaisa.B asaef bisxl o«iJ5i mii iaxii Isll 

'Uj ffo .fcivle V;...:5l 9x£;J "io Do±#a|i^ 'i0M?> tXJ^l^^^ ©Sbirl axo'ted bi»Tjs»qqs 

•x®Jfi9 x^-^^ agfttttii m>lSom 'xtfiii acqu has ^irsjoo 'loiieq^ii sdi 

tHMommja 9d^ rowans ct^ ianboi&V ul.i.01 tot d^Ias^s |l t©, fsfttco 

lo isbto airiJ Rt>qts h9't9fao ists ubw *«»c:®bwt o« |bs;tB*8 ^sstX^ aA 

isoeTSrf.1 *a9fiis&wt X^-^' 'io ■^'SiiJ^© s«t^ o- loiriq; d-X«.et©6 •*» bCii «iXua"i»b 

.^S^ ^5i liaq^ f^ TtXX©/I ajjowT. ^tf sftlsje *oe sew 

6^j{ , . , , . >.:. ;irid- lo *XwjRl9& sri* 

Siisi^e ^YHiaiK:: xct'JL iM cn^jZ SJtmj jacfswxloS ogbM^ ano'isrf 

M«wT:9dT:s ©lawifsMw ed'UdH^&wt wi^oa ,6lll:^xji,slq lo aotiota 

!• BSbeXwoaal bsai ef%'^a'xo:iis i»rf «ojk difJjsbar/'iDb TCQtliloR tabiajs tfsa 

•SlJ^XisroruI i£o aoi-JO- ' rino leif^Jla lo eoiistiae edi 

>X siwiii; DXifi «5c:C:'.. . t flcf^sr^to^^i S8fji;t 9X0ls)<f a-gaib&9ooxq «Mii to 

BM aoq^is m&iii oit bo&oloalb ©t«w ba^iosu sk nil'ojsl srfT .lojlssisild- 

»-'" ^^rsjol (Jtifoo sfi;! io ^f^ioob &di lo noJt;fj3nlia£;X9 

*aC@X t4-X XT^i'tfti&\ lo noowtasHc erf* riO «;tiw©o loiisgwa ^ l^^jfTeXo 

.a*a©fiia&x;t ©airli vdi him siXmB' .rfi 5®«ioXo«.s:b mlisaim!r.x6 ieuTS 

XJO *02lcob ©iSQ a atfi lo JSoxctexiimBX© ns iadi esiaolfefli s©xi9biv^» odT 
5»BoXoBib ,&5ex ,ax tcmwwbT, ».h .^^: -^alatoBt gitlvoXXol axf;^ 

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 olerk' s office showed that the answer of defendant was 
entered therein as haying been filed May 2S, 1935. The time was 
stamped upon the answer itself in the clerk's office showing the hour 
to have heen 2:04 p» a» of that date. A. further seardi made during 
the afternoon of January 14 ? 1936, In the vaults of the Superior 
court, disclosed that the cyibyibt itself was attached "by a rubher 
"band to the suBimons in the catisej that these documents were not in 
the regular envelope or file in the csuse, hut were in the general 
files in the clerk's office. An examination of the back of the 
envelope usedto hold the papers in said file in the caee disclosed 
the order of d efaiat of May 29, 1935, entered hy Judge Gchv/aba "but 
did not f:i6clOBe any order of d ef ault under date of May 28, 1935» 
entered by Judge Kelly* It therefore appeared that upon motion made 
"by plaintiffs for defaisilt in the cause May 29, 1935, "before Judge 
Schwaha, 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 Schwa'ba* Jiine 14, 1935, when the cause caae 
up for hearing to assess damages on the sd. d default of May 29, 1935, 
the ane-wer of defend^ait was not in the envelope ov file of the papers, 
and the fact that said sjiswex had \>een filed ITay 28, 1935, was not 
knoOTi hy counssel for the plaintiffs, and the fact of said ans^ver 
being filed W8,fi not brou^t to the notice or atcention of the court. 
The court entered juagment after the verdict, while without knowledge 
that Eaid answer had in fact hoen filed. The fact that t'<ie answer 

had been filed was xmknovvn to plaintiffb* counsel and plaintiffs' 
counsel did not at any time service notice upon defendant nor defend- 

frori 9i{^ ^atwoflB &oi^.t9 y^aCt^Xo ©ri* «i IXsisil: ^eweris arirf- joeqj/ l»9<iia,sil"a 
jj«j:*iyfi ^?).riiir isf^TWx . . .K .q ^0«S nsfttf eviwf oi 

til j^on artsw e^xisjRi;jool!> qibsxI;^ 4£^^ «93i;j£0 Bfii ai sixoxms&u siid' 0;$ bnecf 
£oid£i9;g sjlif «i s^ew ^wtf t»®J»^f ^(Jl* /iM^^flUCil 'lo sqoXsvao iaX«89^ oxiit 

baaoXoaio y-xaajs^ sxi^ bXo4 OiJbaaif ogoXern© 

%d€Ql t'Sii X^ 'io, »l*Bb iQlbau ^Xwsis % t»..l»b'xo itfla aaoXoeib ;f«»« btb 

obaa aoiiom aoqw rfe«l^ &ai£:sq^jK oio'i&T&iii :M .TflX-oi^i i^Sfcxit \;cf bfl-jce^ns 

©a&tfl a-xo.'iocf <cieex ,es ^.sM ©aw^so a4#:,iii: *liw«l*f> a«l al'USniBXi tcf 

eoilQli wijCI 0^ o«Do XQU (iXXlii^XeS<l 's«>'i Xoaeaao i© «>»,feaXwefi:rf -so ooirlon 

osBO 9Siti«o 9x1* jo^jlw. (.aSftX f>l wxjuX •j&diifriio... egotfX 'to osfc"*.£^'«>f<2i to 

«a£9X «SS. ifsM "io ;JXtfal3..-) & isa ©jrt.l 00 ossjofwfo aaaasA o* s^i^-ss^ to"! qu 

iwa, ex-.w ,g£»X <aiJ TC«M S^Xil: neerf fe/sii wv/iaas feJsaa #«ri;} ^oxIe ^;^ bas 

nowarxjR aji:';? i^adi Joel oMT .i^eiXIli Ksutf iont al b£^ taymsm o Lr^ i^iidi 
iAfilialjilii bim l&atujoo filtXiuL^Ssi ocf WivonsCca/ 6eXn nnerf &jgiJ 

ant'B counsel of any motion or motions for ci efault or defaultSt 
or for tlae tciking of testimony in provint; up their daaiagGS June 
14, 1935, or at any other time, nor was any notice »erv«d upon 
defendant or defendant's coxmsel that the cause Vi-ould "be placed upon 
the trial calendar, so that defendant and defendant's counsel never 
■before January 14, 1936, had notice or knowledge that the caur.e was 
not at issue and in readiness lor trial whsaerer plaintiffs' cotmsel 
shoxild so elect, hy giving jiotioe to defendant' o couacel. 

It also appears that defendant has a meritorious defense in 
said cause. Indeed it appe-ira the administratrix in a suit grovring 
out of this same occurrence ohtained a verdict from a jury on vMdh 
the Superior court rendered judgpient against plaintiff Alfred Lenox» 
which on appeal to ibMs court is thie day afiiraed in en opinion 
filed in case Qen. ±fo. 39342. 

It is, of course> element&ry that after the expiration of 
a term of court at which judgment has "been rendered, the court loses 
4 ariF> diction* By statute in Illinois the term passes after the 
expiration of .50 days from the date on which judgment is alters^* 
(111. State bar Stats., 19?5» chap. 110, par* 268.) At common law, 
Tsy v.iit of ©nor coram nobip , errors of feet not appearing on the 
faoe of the record, if of euch a nature thst if Imown to the court 
at the time judgment was entered would hsre precluded the entry of 
the Judgment (provided the esiae occurred without negligence of the 
applicunt), could "^e corrected, fhe vrit of error cor am nob is in 
Illlnoir has been abolished by statute^ (111. Btate Bar Ctats., 
1935, chap. 110> sec. 72) » stnd there ia Buhntituted therefor a 
motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis . By the terms 
of the statute the motion mc;y be filed at any time within 5 years 
after the rendition of She Judgment, and although the term has 
expired, all errors of fact coiaraitted in the procedure may "be 

— 2- 
,BiLiJ&1eb to Oil/.. vac lo Isanwoo •♦iajii 

ao^ir' feisvtsa aoii(., .. , ■rl/o 15^; , cei t^'Jt' 

aim sawao W* Jisil/ «»foeXwofi:i to solion &/?«? «8e^X tl-X x^ntttUiX a»t6rf 
»Xuaijjjoo '■^^[Uibaa'iBb ot 'eoiitJi ■^irt^ x<^ tooola oc bXiroria 

tk:'-xi: no xrsji je sk'H Isis^^^v * fedRia^.tf© *»i»itttfb9« shli "10 ^sso 

«ri^S9S .oil «ff^ saso nt holU 

,waX tansBBOo iUi ^*8di; »'.:BCi sOXX iq;sd3 «e>';SX «*a*j>5d'<2 x«rf a#sd-y .XXI) 
BiU ao 3airr33<iqi3 *Oii ^a-sl ta niott^ tBlrfeii iaa;ioo ^oji-xa lo iix.7 ijcT 

to -^Ei^tnii) sarW bebitlom.q 3-«5.rf f)Xifow &!rt«*H«) aaw iuQmgbut, smli sdi ^a 

ir^i Iti ©onssiXgof-'' ^wad^iiw fes^rwioa© 9Abs 9tii boliir^ini) iciQts^iwl »M.i 

ssi ,a auoc ,„ttt. g»o.?. Torr^t^ 'i« tlt-y 4*ri^> •b3toQ%70o •<*€ bluoo t (*asJOiXq<i« 

,.ajJjBt'". «air ftv*i;^K «XXI) to^M^J-tuJa xjg' &9itf*.XXo<f« «©©if Qfirf aioaxXXI 

« TO'isTari* h^tui t,!in4iSfs bX aT*£f* &iijfj d^gv .osa «OXX *fiiS£iO « 5£SX 

aiirt»* f^&i vff «^Q2ef»n jaa^o loiaw Tro itm » t« ®:i«*jBn ©«.* nx iawx^ofi 

corrected* Prior to the anactment of the Civil Practice act, 
it was held that the motion was confined to suoh errors as might 
have heen corrected at common law. Cook v« ?ood y 24 Ill# 29^5; 
Est ate of Gould v, Watson i 80 111. App. 242; McOprd v. Brig^s 
and Turivaa| _ 338 111* 158 » and even since the enactment of the 
Civil Practice act» it has "been held that the motion does not 
invoke the equitable Jurisdiction of the court* I ^ynn v. Multhauf ^ 
279 111. App. 210, and Loev/ v. Krauspe^ 320 111. 244. 

The issue of fact in this oa,se is whether defendaafs answer 
was filed with the olerk May 22, 1935, Isut stamped "by the clerk as 
filed May 28, 1935. The trial Judge exprsBsed the opinion that the 
clerk did not make a mistake, and that the pleading was in fact 
filed at the time indicated hy the stamp of the olerk and upon the 
date shown hy the receipt of the clerk for the appearance fee* 
Assuming this to he the oase, the question arises virhether the fact 
that the trial Judge, at the time of entering default in Judgnent, 
did not know that the tardy pleading was on filej was such an error 
of fact as if it had "been known, v/ould hare precluded the entry 
of the Judgment. Plaintiffs assert that it ^■sould not. They rely 
upon rule 11, sees. 1 and 2 of the Cuperior court, which provide 
in substanoe that when prooees has heen served to a given return 
day, defendant shall appear before the opening day of court on 
Wednesday, the sec<»id day after such r eturn day, and that in the 
event of his failure to so appear by filing a motion or pleadingp 
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 J that every such motion must be made in 
open court prior to expiration of the time limited for appearance* 
Plaintiffs say it is the intention of sec. 1, rule 16 that if an 
appear anoe has been filed in accordance with that section in time, 

isi^^im as a-xotrr© flowfei o* {jaflitiioo sbw no Wok ox{<t 3''".(r bXarf cjjw *i 

j??«?a »L11 iS. fi^ 2fi .:i *'f j££2 *'^^^ Dossis.00 i.& &6*09TT0a cserf erad 

if^BiJj; ♦'•'■ l^E^SM JS^S ♦<j[^A •III 08 iMB^li^ «'^' ^,XtJeO, \o a^si^K 

&sii 'io JK»is-*;-;BriB 9if^ so«J:e a©v» b«« «SaJ! .1X1 »f-C 1 3>3v; l;i:jLfT b /is 

^<m aoob aoii&si e>d$ iadi bl&d ne»cf ejsri {TJ: ,*i>« aai:#oe«<I XivlO 

•W-S .XXI 0S£ .»,a>i:{Bifj8tca ,.Y tf9oa &JK« iOXa .♦<I«j[A .XXI «vs 

OB :ix&lo odi xd bsqimi^ o'l^tf ,e£?X < as '^-laM ali^Xs ©xft xiilw beXil: o«w 

©id* djsrf* nojtaiqo ©xifl' boaaa^cixa aawtft lai'xi orfT «S£SX ,SS •^bM bsllt 

;toi8l: a± saw ttji^ibssXq ©iii* ^MiS btiB «92iu;feias « ©JUwa; *oa 6X5 ainsXo 

tixi»flQ&art «i *Xjai5ls»6 Sflirt:e*H9 lo smti &d^ Sb ,«Sb«t Z.^ir^ &di isdi 

ttnt^ OB d'mn' amr t%£it no «bw p,«i&^oXq ijMb* 9M isdi vfoa:i ion btb 

X'itn» ©ri* lbsfewXo«iq: nvsd bXae* iimotfS. n«9rf bsA it tl as tojsl lo 

Xl&'t t&rfT »^Oi:i &X&'0/ it i-cdi i^zQasta eiYitini&i^x .*n9ia®fcx/f, 9di to 

»ftJtYOiq iIoMw ^^iKoa rroitoqjia art* "So S arije X .aeoe |IX sXi/'i aoq» 

wts.tis>'i. nsvJcB js oi b©V'X9a nesrf a^xl aa»oOTC{ norfv' jaal ©ooB^arfifa ni 

no 'to "^b gninacio enJ- a-ioiscf rtaaqcjB XXaifs incbxtslab t'v;jab 

©rf* ui *j3Xid' bae tY-^b K^wtfaixfowe ts^Ijj Tjab baooae sdi tX^baaubo^ 

«anibji«Xq t:o xioi*o« b rjnJtXxl ificf xasqqjs oa oi a-mllut shi to SueTs 

©j1* fli sniXiT: e;; njxa liXtfelsb fll b&isbtiittoo ad" Ilsria ©d 

XXAfts b^dXq oi siaiJ to nox«a©5x© t:©! uoldOm J3 io SvOillo p.^^t-^lo 

aJt sbjBffl etf ;JeuiO tsolioai lisus ^i^sve .tcxiJ ? J'XwbI© b qo*a lloacf n 

• ©OfiBissqqa 'SOt beJlffitiX smti miit >o noxJjBTlqx© o;f roi'z:: . -.yo nsqo 

na 11 isidi bl sXwt ,I ♦oa« lo nok^tiQial ©ii;t ei .ti: v n s!tl*iileX<3: 

lOfitl^ £ji noi^toae isidi xfii^? oorwb-xooBP n.?: bsXil H9©rf b^jI ©«nfliBoqq« 

defendant is not to "be defaulted vdtliout notice If he subsetiuantly 
fails to plead; that* howerer , if he fails to file an appearanoe 
in time» as prorlded "by that section* he is then in default for 
went of an appearance, and that under sec* 2 of rule 3,6 he is not 
entitled to notice* j-i. different construotiony it is said^ would 
leave the procedure of the court in a chaotic state, aiid under such 
construction defendant could "by negligence ajnd nono"bservanoe of the 
rules defeat and nullify the procedure* Plaintiffs cite Mandell t* 
Kimhallii 65 111* 582. 

Seo« 20 of the Civil jpractice act. 111* Gtate Bar ^tats*^ 
1935j> chap* 110, p* 2440, provides in substance that every appear- 
ance in a civil action, whether in person or 1»y attorney} shall Ite 
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* :uefendant contends that under this Bection 
the filing of a tardy pleading amounts to an appearance, and th»t> 
therefore, imder sec* 1 of rule 16 j» defendant was entitled to 
notice* Defendant cites Swierez v* Iifalepjca , 259 111* App« 262; 
Marland Hefining Co* v* Lewi3 _ y 264 111* App* 163* Defendant says 
the second santenoe of sec* 1 of rule 16 seems to imply that a 
defendant may appear and yet he in default for want of an answer. 
She Bays she does not claiBi, that a tardy pleading ipso facto will 
prevent a defatilt, '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 discretion* 

The real question seems to he what is the legal effect of 
the filing of a tardy pleading and the determination of that question 
seems to he controlling on this phase of the case* iPlaintiffs contend 
that it is a ntillity* The authorities are not in entire harmony* 

;tofl -^i orf 5| ,091s tsbitir i-M^ ba» ^»iimf.s^9qria tta I0 d'nsw 

...'.' ic' *©f^Y-j®etfOfioa £)x;.B fioxisgiXsett >ctf bluoo iimi>»9tBb «oiiJoj:rcJai»o 

,.e*jsd'w i«a k?Jjsifo .XXI «J3J8 eoi^da^ 'livlO oil;? 1© OS •osS 
-•lisaiiqa ^'xo-^-ti *aclc? ©oajsiTHtfira ft! afebirO'xq ,0|k^S .q »OXX •qistlo «8sex 
&d' iXsK'a t-igaa^b^d-fi X'<f 1O aoafj>8[ tti: lailifailvr ttiolSQa Xxtxo e iiJt oott.a 

S0oi*o« iO aoiv^ea 9i(9riw aesiSfec lisj \;;f.t-j:.TXi;oi*T:/^ liihr oin&e XXjarfa 

' <if«^* bets t ©on^tjseqtq.i . . ; iihuQtesi 8ftl&r,f5Xci t6*-8* * IdBJxlJil 9Ai 

0* 66X*1#«'3 a.ew ifius&wslsb «6X »Xj.;t lo X .00a lafom; t3i6'io*©fi* 

tSftg iq^A '4IXX #58 «Jattj^M]| .? ia^alwf^ a&ilo JOBbn^lsG .soidfon 

e-^a *«sbni3l:«iG »ESX ..qqA tlXI ^SS j>aJ?![®J '"^ »oO anlaileg bflgXi iail 

s Jjsrf* ^XcfEtl 0* aaisse SX oXort "io X ♦oea 1c eenacfn&B baooaa sifd- 

XXiw o^of,1: oatj^ J t anlfeBslnj ■^ftrtjc;^ je ijsdi «ii:>;iIo dcuct aaofe siis a^jca orfS 

o* Xoerufoo snicoqqo ©ti,? aXsqaioo J± *Mf yXko iij4 ^iltmlsib e itim^xq 

^3;3'£t» ■i'&dibi rmlisit.o'HU) ail ul •\jjihxi ^'xxjoo wj:id' Ms/ijf feas ^soi^on •via 

«oi^a©jjy *«ifJ lo *«>iafiiiJBfZ8>*;;b aiC* b«js gxtlbsaXq '^b-x/ssiJ a "io snlXil: edi 

btioiriQo sTLlilimi :il% ♦aaao ©iij 'io sn>?il«| aM? xio jjxs!JtXXp'j;t«09 so' o.^ amees 

♦ICnofaiTjari «»ti;fxni) rxi .*o« 9'xj? B9iil%«4iftta sxlT •xd'iXXjujn jb eJ: Si ioAi 


In FreeniEji on Judgjnentsj vol. 3, p« 2642j sec. 1270, the author 

6 aye : 

"Default judgiaeat cannot 1)6 entered against a party who 
has an an appropriate pleading on file which hr.B not been stricken 
or othervidse disposed of*** 

Section 1273 saysj 

"The effect of pleading after the expiration of the time 
allowed hy the law depeuds somewhat upon local std-tatea aiid rules 
governing the matter of default. But v/here liie practice contem- 
plates tho entry of a default as a record iadication of the fact 
and as a preliminary to a judgment » a pleading filed "before such 
an entry has been made is held Buffici^nt to prevent judgment » at 
least v/hile it remains undisposed of. /ua answer filed after the 
time prescribed or allowed and before entry of default cejmot be 
disregarded since it. is not a nullity though not strictly regular. 
Ifeverthelesa the court may in its disoretioni upon wotioii» aither 
strike such a pleading or permit it to stand or take such action 
as justice may reqture." 

In Bancroft on Code Practloe» vd. 3, sec. 1804, p. 2368j 

the author says* 

"Orciinarily the ri^r^t to plend is not cut off until a 
default has been entered or claimed in the proper manner, notv,'ith- 
standinrr 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 leest 
until such pleading has been disposed of." 

In 15 H. G. L*, sec. 113, p. 66&9 it is aaidi 

"If a party, after the time expressly granted for filing a 
pleading against him hixs 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 cajnnot 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 aa d 
void if entered after defendant has appeared and pleaded." 

The rule in Corpus Juris is thus stated {see 34 C. J., p. 


"Defendant cannot escape the consequences of his default 
by filing an answer or plea, after the expiration of the time 
allowed, unlesn 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, 338 111. 21, the Supreme court, citing 
cases, stmuiiarizes the lav/ as follows: 


todiUB or£J «a^aX aOQ^ «GJM>S •ci <C ..Cov taia&K^^bfjl, no namoQX'S. al 

B^Xjsii baa aaiiiima isooX kocjx; istl 
srfi- ^ed'lB b«X~l '.isv/a/ia m\ .to besoqiiiofUJ siiiivn-'i ii e-.: 

4 s^^y £V;^X Kcl^Joe® 

■■■■ ; M 8.Hrf v'^ftA na 


rSaSS .q iJ^OSI .093 4 

'»|#a®«« sboO «»B i^otoftsfi ill 

* aY«*a 'i^oil-tx/js ailJ' 

js Xid'HW II0 ."tiro ;}oa ai fe.cQl^ oJ ^xfai-x ia^ ■x.Xlijaal&tO* 

«»ixl ijo ax s^-*-&^''5>Xg «foet''' ' ■■'-■-'•■■: 

':^ ^i Y,-tin'=<woyanoO 
,v,«ib»dXq doiiii Lhir.u 

*^ ftlS. •©»8 ,.<! 4*0 .S fil'ai 

3iiil5,3oXq axiJ amiJ-iiiiaci vjxit* fix bij^T «).'- 

erli 2*it.rzy ^^oel'ia iix ,*ayf>Koo jiui/is x<^ «>-*ii «i»uXii orb 

r« ati slx'l oi sTuXi^i"! 10I: Jbais^wa ? ■ 

IJXB '.mltJ^oiti xXrif-ialbio at tfXA/^rnb xe 

iff, A .bsiajn.^ 9cf 0* 

"♦bs&aaXq fam bsxxssqcrij aexi Smbm<sl3,b lait^a &;.':t9^na li fciov 

.:j.!;-xifTi axraxoC ai: oXuti: sxlT 


0Vi5aX TO tl'ilJni.sXq arf.-t lo inyanoa x^^ beiS.i1 at . 


SnJaio tJ-rwoo sototiqi/i] ©il;} , 

g-ye^iooS .V ^ xX^X-'-i*! "j 

>vbX Siii &9sixaiiims ^BQaao 


"The general rule isp when tiis time for pleading has 
expired and the party has filed a pleading v/ithout leare of court 
and vvithout oouEsnt of the adverse ps.rty ths filing: thereof is an 
irregularity* «hich» if not waived, renders the pieading liable* 
at the d iscret ion of the court , to "be stricken on motion or dis- 
regarded or treated as a nullity." 

V«e are inclined to hold that under the law of Illinois the 
filing of a tardy pleading is not a nullity from the legal standpoint, 
hut it ifa an irregularity v^hich may he treated "by the trip.l court 
according to its discreticn. In this cane the trial court exercised 
its discretion when the feet of the t^rdy plet dinp was called tc its 
attention. Judge oohwaha expressly said that if he had known there 
was such a plecding on file he vfould not have entered the d ef ault 
and judgjaent. Ee, therefore, entered the order setting the Judgment 
aside. In the aheence of hacf, faith hy defendant, vre think that ilmost 

any trial judge would have done likewieep Courts exiat to try cases 
on the merits, not to dicpobe of them on nexe technicalities* The 
decisions of this court are in conformity with thia vieA'» >i:trau e; t» 
Biesen, 242 111. App. 370; Riesdorf v. Fyfe? 250 111. App, 122. 
There reiaains for cont^ideration the question of whether 
defendant was gtiilty of negligence ^hieh rould preclude this relief* 
The trial court held that he was not, and the question of negligenoe 
is usuallj' one of fact to he determinec' from -r^ll the circiMstances* 
It v?oiAld undi;ily extend this opinion to consider all the cases. \%'e 
hold that the pleading of the defendant which v^as on file v^as not 
necessarily a nullity; that the question of v/hether defendant wee 
guilty of auch negligence ai:i woiAld har tMs remedy was for the court. 
i.s was well said in the ecent case of ;:>cully ▼. Kiohardson _et_aJU»_ 
G^n. So» 39035, opiiiion filed January 4, 1937, "^there is no syllogism 
or raathexaatioal formiila hy v;hich to deterEiine negligence," The Judg- 
ment of the trial court iivill "be ai'firmed* 
O'Connor and McSiurely, JJ., concur* 


ito^ si Joerc^sii [lalllt »dt xin&ci aeTQV&js (sdi lo iKsanoo JworiifJtv ins 

fvumn Inttf wm X'tf fe9*.«'J^;^ sff Vivcr i'fnidw '^*l?isX«jj3*rx-l li - .1 J:. Jud" 

-.: -(li/ow Sid sixl iso T,ni5'"3X:[ s xiswa a&'W 

aafa^ c ^'x;J o:t iaixs 9i%v<iO n&Bhtalll »ko« avarf bluOi: &T^bii{, Lxiti xa^ 
©ilT ,3-r.'.U*l:I.;»;J ")':i&ia xso fitsMi lo 3ao.T.-15 Cj "00 ,<.;^i-xefli 9x1* no 

*ssx ♦(jq^. *is:t oeJ^ jl9|x2 *v tTcofiaoJ^ <0t5 » ^ . . < asssig 

.leJtIe ';{ aMr' otrt-vr^t'i Ms;;?- tfo»:rfvT ^a/t^- ^.tJ:5^fx ^0 ^JXiifa a^'w- *nB5n9la& 
©WsasiX^si- • r".^' 'Zed i'suo-j sgT 

iea n&w o£Z ..^^a doidu . , , ■ ,, olq »rfv- ; Ion' 

B.3W i9xf*5rf^ 'io mli&QUp ^k^ i^'adi {^±IXx/u « •^cXi'xcas.-so'jri 

titvoo &di to'.:: a.sw -^bfJcif^T alrl:} tjscT ^Xi;fo^■-' .r, oon3jUl7^.3.u clo.n.; "io '^d-IIi/y 

-JLdl^-,«t^..M.«%55'«€»^ '"^ Ji^:i&£ii '■^•^■•' - •>'■-■- ■- '■■- .It*?/ u^.^rvv a..x 

BisisoIX-v:* •«« wi ft^'fitrf*" -,TS«X. ,** icsjsxm.:^t, bsXil iioiui , , '.^ ■ , , ... .;,a-0 

-afc«t exIT ",90X5qsxXb©xi oxiliaislsfc oj rioMv -o^tf nlLW-oTt lor^tsiastxfifsm tro 

*^tifOxxoo t»o^ tXXeiJuaoM wi.s lonaoD'O 


WALTSR S&G25L, a Minor, by OttO 
Eugel, liis next friend, and 


TilE CITY OF CHICAGO, a i^unicipea ) 


Appellant. ! 29 I. A. 604^ 


January 17, 1934, Walter Sngel, the plaintilT, euetalned 
seriouB injuries through an exploeion of ini'lsuomalsle material at a 
dump maintained ty the City ol' Chicago near the intersection of 
of Springfield avenue luid 63th street. He brou^Jtit this suit "by 
his father, his next friend, basing: it on the alleged negli^^ence of 
the City and other defendantfe who had deposited material on the 
dump. In the same BUit the father sued personauLly to recover nece8« 
Bary expenses inourr<rd by hiii in furnishing medical cate to his s#h 
as a result of the injury sustained at that time. Defendants 
answered the complaint denying liability. There was a trial by 
jury Wiiicii returned a verdict in favor of some of the def eiidants 
but in favor of Walter Sngel for ^^45,000 and hie father in the 
amount of |340G against the City, and judgments were entered on 
these verdicts, from which judgnents the City appeals. 

It is not contended that the damages are excessive, but 
the City contends in the first place that the judgrflent in favor of 
Otto Sragsi, 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 111, State Lar Stats,, ie35, p. iao4,) It is 
also contended tuat the ju-Igment in favor of Walter Engel should 
b© reversed for error in the instructions fciven at his request, 
because the alleged negligence was not the proxiraate cause of his 


THUOa fi01fiRH.m HOH'i .IA41.15A 





a ** Jjiltai-fisa dlrfauuaaX'iiii lo aolsoltpc* a*. Agiiotiii 99iTuittJ. v,-^ou.i;a 



)..'&K"J.Vi V"w''i ;:'u i. 


eiii -co "sia^a «*8ii:lxo-xq 9x14' *«« a«w •oassiXaaa l>a»eXX* ©^^^ i>s:^^o^d 


injury, ■beeause the streets upon which the accident occurred h&d 
not teen opened for public use, and "bflicause plaiiitift' neither al- 
leged nor proved aa to Walter Ingel the existence of an attractive 
nuisance, and there wae, therefore, no express or Implied invita- 
tion to plaintiff to "be upon the streets. 

The alleged error ae to tlxe failure of Otto Sngel to give 
notice to the City cannot he sustained. The statute in question, 
hy its terrus, limits the necessity for liotice to acticns which are 
ahout to hft commenced "on account of ar^y personal injury," The 
suit pf Otto Engel was not of that character, 'ft'e so held in 
Calahrease v. City of Chicago HeiiferhtB . 189 111, App. 534, in on 
opinion which is only abstracted. The ctatute is to he liberally 
construed ( McComb v. City of Chicaf^o ,. 263 111, 512), and while 
defendant eai^cstly arguee from what it describes as "interned 
evidence" tJiat it was the legislative intention that the stetute 
should apply to a claim of the character made by Otto Engel, we 
are not persuaded rjnd adhere to the decision formerly made. More- 
over, although he was not required by the statute so to do (Mc- 
Ponalj V, City of Spring Valley . 285 111, 52), the plaintiff, by 
bis father Otto, caused in due time a notice to be served upon the 
City which 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 
cannot prevail. Qraiiam v. City of Chi -ago . 346 111, 645; Sitaon v . 
City <>f Chicago. 979 111, App. 35, 

As already stated, there were originally several defendante 
to the ruit, and de^'e^idant oomplains that tha court instructed the 
jury In E-ubstanee th<?.t if the City was found guilty it ^oul.^. not be 
relieved of liability by reason of the fact, if the Jury so be- 
li<»-e(^, that negligence of some other party had also contributed 


©Iff ".^caijt^ii X«i»?«i:9V' 

al &X91I o«t 9V .av^^^iE^xia iatii tp toa »»w X»3,|siS; fti$Q to ^Jtiva 

lie .' , . . ■ , aj- jl^i^^^-i oa«^X ilO 'to Y,tXp «Y Qj ijB^ ^d' aXjBO 

»J;.jl . ,. .*-^a»;^ai «vi*;^X#Xaf X. jliio oas&lTfl 

•<E|f^ ,,mt*a4*Xft #^- ..„U4., .XXI 883 .^aXX^V }^nn:gri :;p viJlO ..y .^i^^pC: 

•v .1 x^ Jfeeiiupsn ad'o*i1l:,«a.* 'io n.:/i j. ■;:Tpi.ii Axui Br^niKj hoc. .-.oJ-xiw ij^'iO 

©lo'tsidii^ bsi&. d»X.o- *'■■■•''" sfti- set *^iroo sixl* al fcsJcies'S^a ^1 H 

,dt ♦c^A .XXaet-g .oy^X rip. lo.Y^^iP 

to plaintiff's in,1ury. It is urged that it was error to thus par- 
ticularly point out the defendant City. Coiapi iint is .'ilso made that 
the court instructed the Jury that children Kight lawfully use the 
streets of the city for recreation, pleasure or curiosity without 
beoociing traspassers* W« do not think there was rsTeraitl© error 
in either instruction. The undisputed evidence showed that the land 
used "by the city for duarping purposes had "been laid off as a puhlie 
highway, A dirt road prior to its use as a duiap ran tiirougjx the 
center of it. The undisputed evidence siiowed that children had 
for a long time "been accustomed to congregate on it and pass over 
it on tiieir way to and from school. It is true it had not loeen 
formally put into use as a public higiiway, but tiie fact that it 
had been so jjlatted was one of many circujwstanees from which we 
hold the court mitiht properly instruct the jury as a matter of law 
that plaintiff was xiot a trespasser at the tiiie he was injured. As 
to the other instruction, it has in sabstaJice been approved in numer- 
ous cases, Bekels v, Mutte c hall . 230 111, 468; Union Trac. Co. v^ 
Leach . 215 111, 184; Jf»erryi;)an v. C« C. Kys. Go ,. 242 111, 273; 
Vajri ek v. _ G_, .0,. Rys., Cg>. . 210 111, App, 148; genainfr:ton v. fiewley . 
Bros. Co I ^ 241 111, App, 58, Moreover, defendant is in no position 
to complain of the instructions because he entered no exception to 
any one of them, as provided by section 1 of the act to amend sec- 
tion 57 of the Civil Practice Act (gee Law» of 1935, p. 107.) 

Defendant also contends that the existence of an attrao- 
ti-ve aaisance is neither alleged in the complaint nor proved as a 
fact by the evidence. Defendant says that such a nuisance did not 
in fnct axiat as to plaintiff Walter jfingel. It is argued taat to 
create a liability for an attractive nuisance it ie esa«/itiai that 
the tiling claimed to be the nuisance must possess attractive and 
alluring qualities which appeal to childish Inatincts of curiosity 

oiitfuq « er - 'o(rx«q anfjjEUff* lo't >;;;}• i.;- - ' ttmis 

•rij- ilaxiOTii;f ixti (ii^-: ssi; a;^2 ©^ rtoltq Anoi ill! ' i 

&¥f fiyidw aioVt B».>.v;ji.::;<..aifd -^a^ffl to sno a«w |>6*ir*Xq o» n©9cf bmd 
v.'i-l 'it. aaJi^^jm m a , Jowxtfanl -^Xtdq^otQ tiij^tm jhu/oo fiifd-\bX©f{ 

v:-. ,f^; V.J. aaw ©il •«i* ©^ *« •x«B«/Rca<5i.t fi #OM ••* iliif HX-'? Ig Jjsj:!^ 

.y .oO > o>;^y AQxnU ;88^ ,XXI 05S , Xljarioe j-;rjjM «y aX^jI pa .assjst) swo 

; .XXI SMI . , pO„ , »a^.5 „,0,,.«ti ■>'v iMflty-ri©^: j^SX ^llt'tM ,|toaaJ 

,'i?;eXwea ^ y go^;inxnn»S[ jS**/ '.«<i/. , ^ , qO . ^t:fli « . Cf ♦ t t9nh V 

fioiJxaoq OK vil si {fa^itcifylnh ,*c«>T09io.i ,<3S ,':riiA ,Ii'I X*f' . « , oO .apiS 

Jr tietiqfioxe on bmi&iii» ©il ©sjj^odtf aaottiiinStsrsl nt^ltfrnoo ot 

-o»8 ijaaaue o* *»JB ©ii." ccf I)©*ivotq p.i": ^siaiii td 9tn X*** 

\Si:l ,^,, ,acSX 'to af-,.3a ©9*) cJoa ©oid-ox-.^'l XiriO »f{J lo Vd noi;t 

« •« ASTOiq: Ton ial&l^oo ©xl* xi'Jt liagaXXij aaxixxisn si ©ofiaeix.n ©vi* 
*oa fcli ••iWiBltfW « rfatra *ari* ©t^a 3n£6n0't©a: ,©ori9l>iv© ani \:«/ *6a*i 

o* i^aitj fcsiXiittf t: .I©sn*£ reilaV Viliixl*ilq ot Rii seixt> jTow'i al 

*«iii X«iduft«E9 fti .X oL.Uieiun ©vi*o«x*J^^ na lo't x*;tXxcf.iBXX m «#b»vo 

6«e 9vxJo«a;^*« 8B»aaeq Jsuai ©ottesiMd ©ri* ©rf oi l»»i«i«Xo 8«W* «rf* 

^tiaoiix/o '10 etordftat AatblMt, o* Ls^ooii liolilw aaiJiX^wp axtiiuXX« 


and playfulneaa, and further tiiat the child injured must liave "been 
attracted or allured to tlie object fo'-aid to b-: a nuis.inae in re^ 
spons* to BUcJi childish instincts. In so far as pl'iintiff 's 
complaint is ecncerned defendant is not in & position to urge 
that it was defeetive in this respect. Defendant did not demur 
to the complaiat or move to strike it or in any way question ijrs 
Buffioienoy in the trial oourt. It made no xaotior. for &xi in- 
struction in its favor at the close of all the e-vidense on tha 
ground of yarianoe tetTirean the evideaoe offered ani the facts as 
state! in the complaint. Under the former practice it was neeea- 
sary that a motion for a directed verdicton the ground of variance 
should specifically point out tlie particular -variance Balled on, 
ProTsst Conrtr. Cc. v« loley . 166 111., 33; City of Ohicafio Vy , 
Sprk . 227 111. 63; lapfski v. aailroad Supply Co .. 335 111. 150; 
Pickett T. Kuchan . 223 111, 142. Under tha Civil Practice Act 
(111. State Bar St?te. , 1935, chap, 110, pare. 161 and 170) 
pleadings are to "be liberally construed -with a view to doing 
Eubrtantial Justice between the parties, and no pleading, is to 
be decsKGd bad in substance wLich shall eontairi auch iuformation 
as shall reasonably inform the opposite party of the nature of 
the alaim or defense which he is called upon to meet, andi all 
defects in the pleadings, either in foriL or Bubsttmce, not ob- 
jected to in the trial court, shall be deemed to be waived. In 
Caraon-rayaon Go. y. Pe oria Terragz o po-tnpe.ny. gao 111. App. 586, 
thi'9 court held that even the failure to allege in a coiiplaint 
In tort ttiat the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence 
wae not sucVx a dsf<4ot us coul:i be taken advaritace of upon appeal 
where the suff ioierioy of th<? pleading had not been challenged in 
thft trial court. If the complaint here v/as defoctive, re hold 
tha flofect haa been waived by the defendant. 

fle& ,^aim k^ bllAo ^sLt tsiit ^^rittu't lac .aEoali-'i^^Xq; Sao 

•«t-x ill ®oae«luH ,i: ;o3t<^o sxL^ o+ fes-TuXI*; -so l>!3;J-o<3id'it« 

Oj^iu 0* floi;Jiaoq, *: m .son ex ^iU66a»t»Jb fefinisoKoo al ialsilcfsnoti 

sii^i ncti.;^a»»p y^»w x;it« n| 10 J-i »;^lt;^B oJ- aroii; ^0 i'ffljalqntoo ^xtf oi 

-111 an tot aolj-oia on 9bBia il .i-iwoo XjsJt^t sd* ai xo»'!f9is>J:'i'ii/3 

•i.l^ iio &Gaj*ilv« siii- IJl£ to ©epXo ariJ i-js xeyfit a^i at aott&ufi^ 

.rio fesixoa »onjBJ:i*!r tsX-fsiJajeq »$i tm Sal&% xZlj^»Xti:9^q» feXffOrfii 

jv o^pJLdp, 'to Y.,i^xp ;££ , «XII dSX . X®,l 9'it , .^y . oO , ^T&'^mO ^ ^^j^do't?. 

;03X .XXI ees , .oO vXqgM?.; JbgQiXl^fl. ^y l^a't.oJp^ ;f.a .1X1 VSS «^oS 

ioA «ox*$>«i^ XlvxO *xtJ xaJbnU .S/ . .,7.S . ^i^x^pftl. ^» y^^ .J'.^aici if 

(Ct.[ . 't«q[ ,0<ti ,3t«xlo ,8£eX , ,a.t,ete ^jbS sJfid-e .1X1) 

;^alob 03 .ii'fr J&»jJT*Bfloo ^XlJ5Tj««fJkX s agni&jBsXq: 

;, .»j: a"J;;fc«»i.q. on .fema ,»»itW8f a/ ..iXifsijt, XBi;*£SAd--3crjj3 

aoi^^i^Txo'trij: douci al».iaoo ILjsdn dsJLuW dOj:i3J»«iA<s fiU b»d bosi&0b eoT 

■lo ^-ct:^ io i5^ie<S, 9i}'le!0.«<i.O •d* antotajt ^XfifiBOoa*®*! XXada aa 

XX« ^n.- ,;3-t;3.4 o;^ '^Ql^*?. ^^-^Xao al ad 4oiiiw •is«»'^»|> to iaiiiXe Bc'J 

-tfo ion ,&ofu. Jaai.a x© iasol xii t»£iJia „«.aaiJ5a'^Xci Siiit nl Qio&lQb 

al ,6»viaw SQ'. Qi b»mf>'»li »tf".|X«xi« ,,*si*oa Xjiixl »pJ fil oi bi^to^l 

,38?, .q<5A ,XXJ- BBS ^y;xifcc^j«e0. .o;^^rcta(T Jittooqc »▼ ^oO 'gjaf!Vfi'I»noaigO 

*ai«Xqixi;oo ii nx ©aeXl* oJ' fitijX-U't ©xO' a»r» iiiJii bJi^ii-^'xuoa ffirf.t 

X«J9gq.a tto<iiJ "to 9'^ai cmrbe ixSQtei »tf ' j *o«1»fe tb tinis's. ictfi aavt 

jitj: j^osneXXerio «9«cf *oa fcaxl: aisiBa»Ig M* '**» ^c'>««*'i^oJ';'*^we iWi# ©t»xIw 

JbXori 9W. ^eyiJoa't©!} «wiw .e^erf *ax^a<50i9o uriJ 'tl .J-xvo© Mt^* dfi* 

'Clie question of waetiier tiie evilei-ce v/aa sul'Ticiait to 
prove cauK® of action is, however, open i'or consideration in 
this court, and. requires a suiamary of the material evideuce, 

Springfield avenue, where the accident occurred, is the 
centerof a plot of ground tounded 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- 
cei3tion ©f a single house the preicises were vacant and unim- 
proved, Ihe preji-ises were subdivided September 20, 1923, and 
the streets and alleys dedicated to the city ae public h.i(3ja.^a,ya 
pureuant to the provision of the statute. Before the City began 
fujiipiag there a dirt road in Springfield avenue was used by 
vehicles. The City began using the preiiiises as a dumpiixg plaoe 
about the first of April, 1933, Hefuee material was dumped 
along Springfield avenue from 67tri street (also known as iia,r- 
quette Hoad) to 69th street. Tlie purpose of duruping '«ras not 
only to disoose of waste material but to lay the foundation for 
future use as a street, llorth and south, of these preuises 
Springfield avenue was paved, as were the other streets on all 
sides of it. At the time plaintiff tras injured the dumping had 
been done from 6?th street south on Springfield avenue to 6Sth 
street, and some material had been dumped froia 69th street north 
©n Springfield. The duBiping was done under the supervision of 
the vfard superintendent of the 13th ward of the city, who, under 
the ordinances, was under the direction of the superintendent of 
streets. Wagons and trucks from the city driven by persons undBr 
contract with tlie city to carry its garbage; private trucks as well 
as trucks frora the Municipal airport dumped on thit plot of ground. 
ITae material deposited on the dump was of various kinds; soiae such 
as ashes, tin cann, bottles, copper, brass, zinc and aluzuinum were 

■oitfA^dtiaaeo tti't jasqc ^^ev^wori <«! noid-©/? 'to fl>«»i{«P syort^ 
wiJ- 110 biijB itilatsM ijcf #8fia 9rf# no ,*»«'s*e rfdGd ^«f Jj-Jtjoe 9x1* ao 

OBastJ -^d-ia 9dt s'lo'teE *a#i^isiJ'a ©4!^ 'to iioiBivrKj ©tt^' o:!- d'aeuBttwtl 

Ji&qti^b saw i^ixaed'^a sew'loh ,5£ex ^llrqk to iatit sxtf iupda 

-laii lB« xiworci oaXs) ilsstcd-Q iU?d sroTl suctav^ WftiljsaiiQCB a«oX« 

d'Ofl ajBW :8iaxq)EX'fc "io »aG<|Hiq ©iiS ,Je»i*8 rii©6 o* (imo^ ©JJ»iip 

no't aoJ:*«AiWio'i: eii^ xiJ^i oi tuvS X&it^i-sm »le«w lo «aonel^ oJ \:Xn© 

XXs «o ecfea-x^ffl ibxIS o sxij 9«»w 8» ,fe»T«g b«w 9tai*T*j feX®x't80ii<;^ 

fc«jj SuiqiMirl} &iit b»tisl,ial suit 'i.\xiai&£q, si&ii 9£it *A .-^1 "io asbioi 

Ai&d Qi 9wa«v« fcXei'isaitqa ao iiia^e *esiji'a d*f6 ffioit'x ©ao^ «»etf 

rii"£Oxi ;r©0xJa ri*@Q .fjoa'i b9qfa.iib n©«cf l)«ii i«i":i9*Bi« »«©e feos .^ad-x;*© 

'to aolaiTaatjjja ©ili^ lebati ©iso^fe »jbw aiiX^iiuilii atlT .bl^l'tunixqU n© 

idbaij ,wi4w ,Y;4i:o f>u.i 1© A'iav ii*£X ©lii" t© *aeb«s;r»sxi&<5[ug fcxtr ©£[;t 

'to *a:9jja©i'nxTt9qt-s «4ii ia n0i;>o»"xii) ©xl;}' t©fcnu a^w^©©ii.a«axln:o ©xf* 

talimj aw©«i©q ^tf a»vji-ih \ii^ &dt. *si9r1 9:^m'ii fi«6 9mm'^ .oi»«'s*a 

XX9W a« ©Jiojwa 9;r«vti<i ;©;^iJc(^*53 «-ti ts^ao oi ^c^Xe wtt it»iw Jo^i^noo 

rioija ©isoa ;«i)«ial BUol-x^r 'to «x.w qawfc ©x£* no 6aJ:i8oq9l> Inlinixm ©xH 
©«W ««nim.X« bO^ OOi:^ ,e©*«d ,1©qqOO ,«©X^^od ,30^0 nl* ,8©Xf8© 


non-com"busti1:)le; others such, as cork, pap«r, Eawfluat, rags, old 
^jruehes, ^(sre e'.mbueXl'ble but not exolosiv** Mucii of the material 
eor.misted ef eans, containers and Tbottles which held liquid ciieeii- 
eals, the product of Wixard, Inc., and iidway Chandral Coi&pany, 
wiiich clealt in articles of this kind/ These materiale were ex- 
plOBiYt and were hauled from the plants of the oorporationa and 
deposited there "by Mr, Zlmiaerman , who had been ejaiployed by these 
eorpo rat ions and. who testified that he asked and recftived permis- 
sion from the warf) superintendent to dump these iQat&rials at this 
place. The vard suparint«SQdent denieri that he gavs t^iis permis- 
sion, 'fher?' was erid^noe both ■;vaya, but the Yerdict oi the jury 
eeenie to settle that issue of fact in f?*vor of the plaintiff, 
Zifflmerman deposited altogetlier about 2At) truckloads of material 
of which 10% or 34 truekloada consisted of this latter sort of 
possibly explosive material. The orders of the ooiapaniee for 
whieh he worked were that the cans and bottles should be broken 
up, but he said it was not practical for him to do so* Siiaiaerffian 
be^an to duatj^ Ootober 31 and continued to duisip until i^oveaiber 23, 
19 33, These ffiaterials were scattered all over the du^tp and for 
aionthe had been picked up by tiie children visiting the dump. Fires 
were burning on the du^p froit tiffi© to time for majtiy weeks and were 
observed by praetieally everyone wh© passed, tii&t way. The testi- 
mony of experts shows that soffie of this material, sueh as liquid 
wax, will ignite and explode at 190® to 250° ITahrenheit, and that 
a eonta^ner holding this material, put into the fire and heated to 
a certain d*?gre(?, would explode iwid blow I'lmi^a in alj. diraotions. 
The evldenee shows that fires burn^^d or siaoldered on the dos^ lor 
dftys and 8ometia«s for aore thMi a reek; that the fires were fre- 
quently burning while the aen were leveling off the dui^, and 
%h0v was also testiuiony tending to ahow that the i&eD wh© leveled 

-S3 .... ,.MJtt9iBm «p.«9'f \ft0;^ • ,,. ;?i«s& ilolnv 

£i9i..<»d' (»cf &.Xi;/B£U S,&l^io4 fym> sues ei^U :^«^ OIXSW fr»3ll%9W stil £to,Jt£fv 

»it«w fiiWi fiiiasw Ttoaa xo*i ©JKi^ ©1 ^iail .«OTfl t^W** ffH ap aaimycf 9i»tr 
feiupiX «* xiatia ,X|i4i:«#«M .®li- '*o S'swa *«x'.. ::?Tr^^r?:3 "^c y;n<}m 

off the (!uiap would light the fires* 
There/ evidence from which the jury could find that theee 

fires wer4 permitted lay thf» employeee of the City and &v times 
lighted "bj them for the purpose of dispci^iag of the combustible i 
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 "bottles of the chemical company and they 
played around the fire; they hrougiit little wagons with them and 
carried away the material they picked up; no one ever told the 
children not to visit this place and none of the many children who 
testified had ever seen a watchman on the duup; neither were there 
any signs warning them of danger or them.iict 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 hoys; 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 hoHie. 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 buggy and were looking for polish and cans; 
they found five or alx cans and bottles on the dump; they became 
cold and decided they would go home; they had a box on the buggy 
in which they put the cans, and aometimee when they moved the 
buggy the box would fall off, and they say they decided to throw 
th^ cans and bottles away; they saw a fire on the dump at 68th 
atreet, and their testimony is that a truck had pulled in there 
just a sltort time before; the evidence does not slaow that it was 
a city truck; they did not know wh© lighted the fire; they put 
their buggy with the front end of it about 3 feet from the .ire, 
and they sat on eaoh comer of it, wanting themselves. Plaintiff's 


»8©/io' i**sii bsii't bluoo xtui^ ©iit iistiiivr ao-x't; ©ois«>f)ivo\2;i©riT 

sIcTii'SMcfttK). siai«^t>;& lo asoc-suq snii lo'l m.m<J -^ef fcftJxisi-t 

featiaJtv HTcsY dX oi^ ^ siQi't ^Kignjai; a«3« 'io aeitfeliiiO ,X«i-isij5U( 

.iisiw ijrxigi :5JB »eXai:;txs xiowa qtj fc«>3i>i:q bn^ ^i;«& ^.mJ-Si ^di 

X9di baa \ius%£iioo iBolimiio &xsi' 'to s»X*:*tt«f fea* aimo «»!5.i6[ ipiCfT 

i:-na ai^di xi.tiw 8cios«w aXd'JiX ^i^juo-xef \;9r:it ;oil'I «rid- &ai/o»i>a fca-^jslcr 

;nd- n«v© «ao on ,-au bsxol^ %@dti Ijsxaaism arid' ij;a"9ir.e 6*iiT«9 

noqu saeo o* taav.apftiW aiiiiXeJ -rp T.*»ai^f> to aery- i^aiarB^ «ks1« x^w 

ildsiii anj ax riosil' £-!u1 irx ;^,.! ■ '-v ■-- x.-,.-. v,^ iii s^jsvf *t'tidTU:«X*i 

t© XXtf't xocf & BflW ©59x1* ifcijuXt iiS-*^' h-^lin ||#X;r#o«r fcaa »fi»o *.l© 

sfooS- x*ri* ;»8* "^o aia«Y £X ^t^Jawt Bioaai'i ,«ioia*iqiiioa 
;aaao tnf\ risiloq; lo't ^,rti?ro<?X *i«v fen«^ ^satfcf ^dijsd" feXo flu amjit xi*lw 

Xi^^ud 9cit act xocf *j Jterf x»^ ;»Mori ob bXtfOW ■^»r{* ,b©Uo»6 tna hSoo 

wotx; lo»* X" ^ ^^^'^ fcXwow xoi sfi* xsawcf 

i;;t8S iA qsiub 9di ae ©nil *• ^ss \;©JiJ ;%«»© 8aIi;ro4 bm aaeo e£^* 

aiT«j;<,f al Jt.©XXi/q iMsif iotirt* « cTsn* ai ^aw^^-f-^aeJ- xtwxiJ Lew .issiiTa 

»i,w il jiuli yfetfBtpcif9ph^f!bmbxr' - - vt/.t.f,J mai,t *ioiI« « *«ia 

^uq v:^xii ;*ul'i ®il.+ ft© tri»Jti;..wl« Wpi#, 4 Oil, i^ii. y;»il* jatoircJ^ TC*io e 

testimony ia: 

Then we got warm aind we decided to go hoxae, as it was 

getting kind of dark, aiid ■'.^e ix.ot up and about tlie i;.-,ua^:: tiaie ,is 
I turned sideways ay Taody was-— my bod^? was facing nerth., &nd 1 
heard a noise, and I turned uj head to Iook aroiui.I and coiLetl'^ing 
shot oat at me. It was a loluish, whitish flauie shot at ms , siad^ 
it shot on the lower part oi' my body. xxiere was a naise li^e a 
loud firecracker. This atufl" shot on me all around," 

His companion testified: 

"Then we got up, and I was Just getting up and the ex- 
plosion squirted on him," 

The in,1uries sustained "by plaintiff ^er?; ter^ihle. His 
underwear was entirely consuaiad to the waist and "burnt in several 
places; the clotiies showed "brown and yellow? stains as ;iistinguiahed 
from "burns, these "being of the same color as the solide in the 
liquid wax. Expert evidence was given that a part of the higher 
"bciling solvents had been in contact and were at the tiiae of the 
trial still present in his garments, 

Mitchell, the ward superintendent, deified thax he gave 
ZiHunerman peradssion to damp, Litcheli also said he never saw any 
of these "bottles or cans cr any pt-per or cartous or "boxcs containing 
the names of the oheB.ical companies, and his acting foreman gave 
testimony to the same effect, ihe assistant forem:^i also testified 
that he had notified the police that unauthorized duij^ping was being 
done on the property and asked thesi to catch tne people who were 
doing it. The evidence on these points was conflicting aiid is 
settled by the verdict of the jury* 

Ihe contention of defendant is that there ?.re two indispen- 
sable ele£j.entB to ari attractive nuisance; that in the- first place, 
the ©"hijeet clfj-imed to be such a nuisance must possess attractive 
and alluring qualities which appeal to childish instincts of curi- 
osity und playfulness, and, second, that the cixiid whose injury 
it causes laufot have been attracted or allured to tne object by the 
response of his childish instincts. It is contended these essential 
elements were lacking in this case. It is said that the objocts 

ajiiw it sii ,«mon oa ot k»9bltt*h 9w' hem aXftV ;fog su' n^it^r- 

M V lor. & e&yr g-xftiil .X-Sioci' ^/b 'to d^iaq lowoX axi'^i" xio iods cM 

** ,Jbm/gT;jB XXfi *ie me toiin i'tij^e eii**! ,i»^oArs©etJ:'i frwoX 

-XB siii fcit* q*f ^ja[i^*©8 *Kwt a^sw I fe«is ,i^e *©ig sw Ci«d!f* 

'",1"' ■ ao i>©.tiiifpff ■■<'•••■ ".re 

aixj .'-rr:-.. iv; 'tits. ...... aalajutal »Ji^ 

Xjaievat: . ■ bftxiiuafioo ■^Is'iij-fys s . ;-/ 'i.s',-y,v'i-bhriij 

sdi al 9btlea bjH^ &i , , .xud moil 

®£i^' 10 auxi , /■.ail B^nsvloa ^aiXiorf 

(»v«'a i»ii i^MiH b9la»b ^iasbaaialisquti brat^v 9di ^lLltd9tl^^ 

fflisv oiiw aldose; ' vi»£{* 69.::.: ,:tuqoi5 «rf* ao ©aofe 

ariioa'xiiii aasaaoq jauci aotteaiun « xiowa 9€f oi A»iaij&Io ^odt^* ^^^ 

"tifjo 'to ttioaiiaal xialfciiiio 05 Xasqq« rfoWw «»itfiX*i;y araiiiflXXa bOM 

TfsiJtnJ: 9aori-.7 blhia %iii i^dii ,jbn«>3»8 ,l>iiJB ,a««aXij'iij«Xq feorf ijliaa 

©i{;t "^d -io^lfio J Jb&iifIX* -lo fo3*3..i:i:^J« n©9cf Qv&rl Jauia aaaw^o iX 

JJBi*n©oa« aasii^ baJiue^aoo .a;roaXiafli riaibXido aiii 'to aanoqae^ 

T^ ^ r+ feK <.»-}• +1 nxj,-' ax ; ai anXxojaX 9t:»w a^naaiaX© 

wliioli engaged the interest and attention of plaintiff were paper, 
copper, brass aiid aloiuinum aXil i.ontairiers filled niih polish, and 
that there is in these ofcjectis no attractive or alluring quality 
which would appeal to eiiildisli inBtinete oi eur»©si*.y and play- 
fulness* It is also said that plaintiff was not attracted or 
allured to the dump by the response of childish instincts to 
ita appeal, ihat he went upon the dump with his cornpanion for 
purposes E.ore mature than childish. That they were ii-. ft.ct in- 
terested in obtaixiinfe something: to sell or use, on the oc- 
casion when he was Injured he was there to obtain Bomething to 
use, nafiie^^y, polish.. Defendant relies on a number ol caees of 
which Belt Hy. Co. v» Charters . 123 111, App, 322; Burn a y. Qity 
of Chicago . 338 111. 89, and latate v^ Trimble . 315 Mo, 32; 286 
&• %'. 455, are illuutrative. 

Ehe general rule at coBoaon law was that the ovmer of land 
owed xao duty to a trespasser on his premises except that he would 
not wantonly and 7/ilfully injure him. The doctrine ol attractive 
nuisance 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, aniounted to sua 
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 
a lawful rignt to be, the question of whetlier or not he Is a 
trespasser does not apply, and the reason for the rule in the 
first class of oases does not obtain. Another ease is where the 
objected nuisance is located on private property upon wnich, 
to the knowledge of the owner, aetuai or implied, caildren are in 
the habit of congregating although not attracted by the particular 
Instrumentality which causes the Injury. Illustrative of eases 
where the accident happen, in the public street is that of J-iia 

•so ftdia^jiJj-B .to-1! 3«- .saanlif'i 

■i /i: itoiofiqpioo aid dilm qmtsb »di aoqiu ;fflMrw 9x1 i*j. . tr.;- sii 

-ax to.l1 ax otcy ,"ftAxi* art«;j-jan ono^a BSdoq-iu^ 

io ??sajBO 'to naefauiTi *. .-^ .>.^j.-. ./.xsbas'lsCi .rfai;Io(i ('^isausa t«Bjj 

y,^jv;^ yv", Qirx f/ ^ ;SSe .tiqA ,i.XI £;'M ^ S'^^ . silaji^O ,, ^y ,. o Q, ,,.,^H ^^.^^ d&tdv 
885 jr^r. ,ov.. (lie. «aIdffiriT.^j>y. s^;- J.. fj-i^a ^ SB ,1X1 6CS . oagaixlQ Jo 

iixrov ©fl' iaxi* *q»oa;» s^iRirstiff ?irf no tff^Bnfuf.^'Xj ,, ... '.;<^ififo 

jaaelijia-i.j a in aoqu eiloH'in alusiea iad:i xnoddi *xW aouu fc»qoI»ir»b 
as o;^ boiauoma «<-x©ii>X.t iJocil** »ci jj nworni 

BQiX>i8iua ^ siexiW* ,a9a«o to sbjbXo dMrHi' oi h^iisall a»»d tan SAJff 

aari bXixIa aii* aiieiiw ^jswiijiM oiXtfu^ is ao bi)ix^ool ^&oiwiaal to't ,!sJ: 

is 3i an Ion io -sssxiv .al*a»wt . 'i' 0* ^rigiT: Xjj'IwbX a 

,b9iX<iaiX 10 XiRUJSjB ,t»iiwo ©rf* 'to s^sX^ooi ©rf;^ ct 

iB'i yiK( '<.« b«*ofi"x;^*« tea d^fjfidile uattM^d&'^^oo 'to ttdAd »:» 

a<.fi«D -io ©vXi«*««IXI .icii/UI ©xli 8»«i;80 iioixt^ ^tilBtaBmurt^cA 

ftXX-i to ;r«rii al *««>^*8 oilduq 9di at p^.i^>rcrad in^blooa ^di 9i9dw 


•V. City of Ghicagc, 247 111, App, 123, Illustrative of th-s. clAaa 
of cases where the owner ionows that chil-lren are in the hatit of 
playing upon the prei-dsea is HaJBasay v« Tu thill Material Co, , 296 
111, , 400, Illustrative of the cases where the nuisi.iKGe is lo- 
cated on private property to iivMeh children are attracted hy the 
thing 75-hich injures them, is Wplozek y. Public Sferyice Oo . , 342 
111, 490. 

The evidence in this case was- euch that the jury could 
reasonably fipid that the defendant City was irell a'Ware of the fact 
that children of tender years were attracted to the duiiip; that 
they were oonstjintly visitin^^, it, and from that laiofrledge ajroee tie 
duty to use reasonable precaution either to prevent the children 
from coming upon the premiees or to keep the preraisea in auch con- 
dition that they v/oild not be injured, Beat^ Adi a'r. v. ...Diat , of 
Gql u uabia.^ 291 U, S, 411. R'satateiaent Torts, section 339. 

Sven if the case were to be regarded as one in which It 
was necessary to prove allurejiient aaiountinfei to an iuiplied invita- 
tion, the contention of defendant could not prevail. In the recent 
ea38 of Q*Dorjie3^1 v. City of ChicafrCOf 339 111. App, 41, where the 
plaintiff, a lad of 9 years, climbed to the top of a steel pole 
on a public highway, rriaintained by the defendant, in order to 
obtain a free view of boxing niatches carried on beyond aii adjacent 
fence, it ^as argued that the pole iteelf was not the object of 
ittfaction, and that plaintiff could not recover. This court said: 

"Defendant argues that the evidence fails to show that the 
p©le itself was the attractive taxing but that the prize fit^it within 
the stadium was the alluring object. Im instruiuontality muy come 
within the attractive nuisance rule if it is so placed as to be 
part of a gen^iral eHylrcn2:,ent wUiCi'. is attractive to ch,ildren. 
Here tne location of the pol« gave a vantage ooint from wiaich to 
watch the events v.'ithin the stadiuoi, " 

A review of all the autxiorities is unnecessary snd would 

unduly extend this opinion. We hold that the evidence was suffi- 


'---'■■ 1"r- -■ ..-::-..■ .T.r---T-- ..- ■ i-'k^ Sf^ ^ 8 i. K 3 G i. -«'a C^ ? Cf J" nAni; •■Uliv«Ia[ 

•-oX si 9am:-«iijn ^i:'^ a-x'^dw a^E-Bo ©lii 'to *vid'4n:ifsjjIIJ. , • , ,1X1 

Sf^S . . oO gp^vtaS o J:Idi<g, .y_ 3[.^sqXo'«v si , i/isil;? esiwt^^-t xfolriw afliilf 

.08* ,XX1 
JbXi/oo Y*iii(. .jjj'a -ejBW ©a*v. ^^11' 

#tj.a'i s>. :*jW» lie- .■fl:«;£a©l&; >. i'aaottfisi 

ai^ $8 01*.! aiibsXrifonat i-*,' litui ,ii. rddi 

ttsifeXini . J iusoii^ "'• J'vb 

"i: xioiiiw ai quo **> ji^iji*;.*©'!. «cf o^ '?'^:*.v.' s?- "vE 

-fij-ival AeiXQiiii .. liitmiooie^ .::eed09H ejbw 

iast:--- ■'■'■'- .z::.svsiq iQabXM<t9> ,r.a;-;>i*si i? i; to ifQAO-iiSivJaoo «>'' , 't 

'©£ici- sieJT.-; , - v.Ji .XXI 868 ^o^&!^i.xl^ 1^ ■%^tl ,y il%asia(!.\0 '.vo nri..y 

•Xoq X®»oti *. Lo\oi 9Ai .t ^- '-fnsiXo ,«iJ3sx S 'to feeX iJ ^Itlinlslq 

o# lefcio ui ,*at»f>xie'ii,».. .-..w -.(.cf tanijB^alwrii (Tcawrfglxl oiXcfi/g js no 

doaOfitJ^ "* Ano'iCSCf no &«lltiss a!5.'a:t.-^i: :v.fii.-:ocf 'io w?.iy ■■->s»'3:t a; xiifi*rfo 

^« iosidQ 9di i-oa «£•,?? 'lit . - , ^cnot 

;&i«8 d'Tuoo olrtT .-t«»v.:. ,api*f>*<;t:fiSi 

■ia;^.L« ti-k^J.1 ©siiii fe*U J*.W 4i.J «*iiii* .•ri;fada**« Oii* «*^v? 'tX»s.Ji oioc; 
«rf oJ «js fesoiaXq o8 «1 *j: "ii »Xiari • ' 6siia^d7x^^ 


cient to authorise a finding of negligence by tlie defendant under 
the oittrsictive nuisance rule. 

Defendant finally contends that the jud^wnt should be 
reversed because the negligence of defendaitt v/us wot the proximate 
cause of the injury. It points out that, the day on v/hich the ac- 
cident occurred, the city employees ;irid duiup wagons hauling for 
the City were not on the property; tliat the evidence shows they 
■were at tuis dump only on konday, Tuesday, Thursday and Jsriday, 
wiiile the accident occurred on Wednesday; that they were at the 
dump on these days only from seven of clock in the mornixig until 
four 0/ 'clock in the afternoon, and that the injury occurred at 
about five o'clock in the afternoon. It is tnus clear froia the 
evidence, the City says, that the truck which plaintiff s^nd iftis 
coiiipcinion saw did not belont; to the City, was not in charge of a 
city employee axid was not hauling for the City, arid that the fire, 
therefore, was not started by at^yone for %'hose acts or omissiona 
the City would be liable. 

It is pointed out tnat it is essential to recovery that 
plaintiff prove that the negligence with which the City is charged 
iBas the proximate cause of the injury, and it is not enough for 
plaintiff to prove an act of omiBsion of the defendant wnich does 
nothing more than produce a condition which Eiade the injury pos- 
sible, the injury itself occurring by reason of an independent 
act of a taird person* Seith v, CoBimonweaith glee. Co, . 241 111. 
2&2, and Hartnett v. Boston Store of Chicago . 265 111. 331, are 
oi1;«d. In jj-GClure v« Hpopeston Gas Co .. 3C3 111, 99, the Supreme 
iuurt said: 

"A cause of injury is not too remote, if, according to the 
usual experience of mankind the result ought to hnvo been appre- 

Proximate cause is tnat which naturally leads to or pro- 
duces, or contributes directly to producing, a result such i,s 
iRiKht be expected by ar^y reasonable and prudent man as liKely to 
directly and naturally follow arid flow out of the performance or 


sJ'^mlxo'xq '5iij ^081 ^^'^ jujuhae .. alwsi^'tf Jb^a^evaf 

• ■'■■'' 1 • 

X^sii •woixa Qoiwfeiv© arid- d-jjii.^ ^TE^a^Qoiq axij- no J-on «iew \;.tiO ea;f 
,v*fci'i oa^swdX ^-^j^gtibe^tiT f^y^^taoU ao xLao qmab siiU dja 4>-sdW 

man jioiisi ■ '^^o nav:;''- (.li^o BX'Sib ee qmjb 

£ 'to saifiiio '- ajiw t'l^lO 9£U o± jaoXsof i^oo fji... ./xi^ ii«j..i. y.-uu 

.erix't 9xii J-fifi ' t' •!-•+ aol s'^-^J'"*^ *oh aaw b.ia •aTitoicjaia -^i-io 

r!:':?r:<l8Eiato to -w ; .. * «.tj>y >'<.■- -rn >.».:1-Tj8d» Joo SAW , ©lo'taidlfi 

9«oli> ifoifiw fOBba&'lQh ':'X:,+ to aoiaei— . i.i*al«X< 

a-s. , . ..Xl adS5 ,QSi-s pf*iP , , 'to '>ioJ-iJ a oJ- aoti .v AtQatlAH baa ,SQS 

smsiqija V ,- , , . ..^ e^o ao»o»gQoH .r ■«?.*<ii>M «l ,bfr^io 

:ro «onLBmo-mq f^yii "to tuo weX'l bne woXXol ^XX«^«*«a Dob y^^o*^^* 


nori-perforrf.ance of arxy act. *** 

Whether the defendant was rRSponsibl? I'or the ignition or 
not ie iai^aterial in tuis--, case, since the ignition was not an in- 
tervening independent cause, but Ijctu it oind the gas were present 
and directl:> ocntriLuting ijautses of the explosion. ii' the gas 
was present becauss of the negligence of the def encliUj-t, he is 
reeponsible lor all the direct consequences that could reasonably 
have been anticipated. ''^* * 

We hold that under the facte .vhicn here appe&r a reasonably- 
prudent person would have foreseen that some euch injury as that 
Wx'iich occurred would probably take place, througn ii:aintaining the 
dump in the manner in wnich it was maintained. The supposed inde- 
pendent cause was not unconnected with defendant's negligence. The 
negligence of defendant was, therefore, the legal cause of this 
injury. Beetateuient lorts, eecs. 430-433. We also hold that 
under the facte which here appear the jury could have reasonably 
found defendant to be guilty of negligence irrespective of whether 
the doctrine of attractive nuleance was applicable, £un.-yan v, 
Am« Glycerine Co . . 230 111. App. 351; Haae v. Her3r-an . 284 111. 
Appj 103. 

The judgruent is affirmed, 


O'Genrer and MeSurely, J <!• , concur. 


ai s^:.^ ,;J'.i.'j.!in9't9fc Qiii 'to saaeaiii^sn siij to ©8j;;©09cf d'MfsjsRaq saw 

Yl';i«-^i. <v.--- - « xx,^.,..,j.. :^i.e^. -^i-i..v, ^,„^i j.u« Aaioau tAiii tloii dW 

l&il* sjs \iu\,ai xioija ©aiaa ^jail* a9«8*no'i «r&xi bJiuavf aoBi9<i icisL^i^, 

-Sj^al tasogquB »r{T «£»ai£c^ni£io 


•Tat •■^' 

.XXI |.e> . ;:ia>T):f:ieH «v ejg#ii jiae .■ . . . .:>J 9flJ:,'£fto-\;;X0 «flfA 



MARIOii RABB, Administratrix of ) 

Estate of EFOifBST RAB3, Deceased, ) 



*^ -B.OX, ^^^^^^^^ ! 2 9 I .A. 6 4"^ 


In an action n the oaae under the statute lor alleged 
negligencR causing the death of her iiiteatate mid upon trial by 
Jury, there wae a verdict I'or plaintiff in the sum of |7500, upon 
which the court entered jud£inerit, froia which defendant appeals. 

It is contended for reversal that the court erred in 
striking a portion of defendant's answer, setting up the defense 
of estoppel hy verdict, in adraitting evidence offered ty plaintiff 
over defendaxit'a objection, the conduct of the trial Judge wae 
prejudicial, and the verdict against the manifeBt weight of the 

The accident in -f?;iich plaintiff's intestate lost hie life 
occurred October 27, 1934, on U, S, Highway Mo. 12, at or near 
the intersection of that highway with Parallel road in Palatine, 
Cook county, Illinoie, ^'heri a DeSoto oar in rhich intestate with 
his wife and infart daugiiter was beinfi driven by him in a south- 
eastern direction collided with a Plymouth driveri in a northwestern! 
direction by defendant. 

This Buit was brought January 31, 19 35. Thereafter defend- 
ant Lenox, Walter Bomman and Anna Btrnman ( tae last two i-iding with 
defendant as his guests at the time of the accident) brought suit 
against the administratrix in the Superior court of Cook county in 
an action on the case for alleged negliccencc of the intestate. 
Whereby they were injured, based upon this identical collision. 



, a "> r [ ■■■' f ! 

♦ » 


^l' .A. I e S ' .^«xx.,,. ■"''^" "^^^ 

noCTu ^OOefl "to mis siiJ- al 1'U<t*uaiq xo'C tnJSt^-r a u»'w a-Esn* ,xiwt 
.aJ>.9gq>::. j-a.8i)as'i»l> x£oi4w fiJOn'i ,4i.i*aiia.fcut fceie^a;? ftaoo sxi:t rioiriw 

*Ba»'i»|) &iii. qtr gai4'^©s ,ia>waaw a' ;tit,sJba»t»i) 'to aok&ioq « a«xaliila 
Ttivf.iii:. Ic; t;cf r '<:>iiHbire T^fiii'i^sa^ .at „ \^ Xscigod-ae to 

9rid^ 'to ^rialew ^ae'tinam «fU ^«ai>i>jti #yifc«i'ST oM ibas ,I«2;olt>xjL©iq 

•sasa 10 Je ,SI .oa YswilaiH .8 ,0 so ,*C6X ,fS «©efo*oO fcstauaao 

,»aiJ«X«^ aX Iwsoi XsIXaijiil iiilvi -scawxi^^ljl J-ariJ 'to flolJoaateJal 9dt 

ri*Xw 9*JBJ-ao*nl riolrij- ai. 'iao o;^o«3©f! a ;3iiv .aioiiiXXI ,xiasjoo atooO 

-diuoa J3 nl m.ld Yd* nsvtifi a^-t»cr sis'^r -tei xvAijih irmliil 6m; a'tlw alrf 

a-m9iQ9miiiQa « fiX laaviir M^uoia-cX* £ Aiiv 6«l)iXXoo nold-osiih niaJaae 

.JnsbcwteJb X'i noiio&tib 

-ba^tefc i9.t*tj8ft'X3irr .eeex ,xs v.T:'''^"a^ *iiaj^oi«f ««* *^"^ ^^ai 

itxw aai&x-x oipi ^i-J ) iismrit.^a «aru\ Jbiie oamttLoa. i9#i«W ,xon»J[ *£Ja 

*!«• iii^iiQi<S (ln«iJbio«« arf* 'to 9J>Tict »ii-^ *fii a*«'vjj.:4 elri Sds imbrn'tsb 

ni Y.itwoo a£ooO 'to Siu~:o to itaatM oiit al xitiaiiakattaiiM eri* tntd^^* 

,&i^t»eial 9ri;t -tc «oas^;iIsea J&easXXa loi 8««o SiU no noi*8« aa 

.aoialXXoo laoii^r^^DX «iri.- «OQtt *oe«d ,&6i«l«i -Mw ^^di >ccf«Mriw 

Jud£ment ty default Tas entered upon the Terdiot ol" a jury miioh 
the 3up<^rior court thereafter set aside upon petition ty the ad- 
minietratrix in the nature of a writ of error cora^u nobia . I'he 
petition was filed mere than 30 days aJ'ter the rendition of the 
Judgment and plaintiff contended tlxat the court without juris- 
diction to set the judgaient aside suid appealed to this court, where 
the cause was docketed ae i^c. 391S3, Pending that appeal defendant 
in his answer set up a defense tuat plaintiff waa estopped ty the 
verdict rendered in the case broug^it in the Superior court, Ihat 
portion of his answer was stricicen hy the trial court, and it is 
argued tiaat the court erred in that ruling. 

We have t^.is day filed an opinion in appeal iSto« 39183 af- 
firming the order of the Superior court, settin;^ aside the judj^ent 
theretofore rendered, and it is apparexit the contention of 
defendant in that regard cannot prerai,!, 

Tiu ccntrclling question upon the present appeal is raised 
hy tne; contention of defendant taat the verdict of the jury is 
against the manifest weight of the eridende. 

The collision occurred between eleven and twelve o'clock 
p. za, , October 27, 1934. At about nine o'clock a. m» of that day 
the daoedent Babb, wit.i nie wife and their infant daughter, left 
the home of lira, Habb's parents at iUirora, i^inxi, , about 570 miles 
from t sir aoE.e in Chicago; they traveled in a Desoto sedem, driving 
through Duluth, iiuperior, iiau Claire and iiiadison, Wisconsin, kr* 
Rabb driving all the ^&y. 

On the evening of the same day at about 9:45 p. m. , defendant 
Lenox lef t ihis home in Cicero, Illinois, for iidgerton, Wisconsin. 
He was accompanied by iir, azid itra. vValter i'orn;«an and i.r, and ^rs, 
Walter Keisker as guests; he drove a i'lyiucuth sedati. 

'fhe highway at the point where the collision occurred is 

$j(T .Klcfora ^^to9 aoine 'to Jliw is lo a-tM3«n sdj" ni xiaitjaiJainlai 

JnsiEtifcJJt' «i^' iyli-tais -gnii-d-sa .S-iwoo lol^dqi* aits' li> •I'efc'xo »fii* gnhtiiil 

,«6nL-Jr,ir5 9i:;J- "to J-rl^li^w ;t 8 9 'tin* a «dW- d'«ni»8» 
atooi**© ©vlftwt i>£ui ^flsvsia nesw^jscf fietTtJjo;-: .Ciaio ariT 

^nivlifi (Sifliias o*ofci««I £ tit bQlsvaxi x^iij joijaoiriD cii ©iaod -si*' * uToi't 

. f.v»i!r ©ii* XIa: ..(ilrtth cfdfAfl 

..iafcoe ri*«(&B!^.£'9L "'• •▼©ife au }ai-«o ,L8l»a ?9#XjbW 

in the outskirts of Palatine, is 40 feet A^ide, and has lft*;es for 
traffic - tTffo for cars going: in a northwestern direction sjad two 
for cars driving in th« opposite or southeastern dirdctior:, Iia- 
mediateiy eoutli of the place ^rhere tne colli Bion occurred the 
road for a distance rune parallel with railroad tracks, then 
curree away to the northeast or to one going north to the right, 
■Qae curve here is Toanked with the low part on the ri«ht aide of 
the road as to t -ose driving in a northern direetion. At that 
point the land fcoes up hill, ond the aill cuts off the view of 
those traveling in either direction froia tiiose trstveiing iii the 
OppoBit© direction on the highway. The DeSoto car, driven hy 
R&toh toward the southeast, and the Plymouth eedexi driven ty henex 
toward the northwest sidesvlped on this curve. It is apparent 
thst if the drivere of each of the care had kept to hie owr. tide 
of the road the collision could not hare occurred, Mi& the parties 
are agreed that the ultiaate question of fact for deteradnatien 
WRe which QsHt was "being driven on the wrong side of the roed when 
the collision occurred, Xhe jury found against defendant on that 

'Hie only occurrence witness for plaiiitlff was Mre. Kabfc. 
She was sitting in the rear seat with her dine months old aaughter 
who was Bsleep. Mrs, Rath says her .aushand was driving on the 
right side of the road, gc ing south, straddling the line between 
the first snA second lanea of traffic. She saw the headlights on 
the ©ther car. Her husband turned toward the right "but defendantis 
car struck the one in which sne was riding. 'Jtie cays: "At no time 
before the collision or after the collision was our car to the l?ft 
of t]ie center of the highway," She says there were no street lig'ats; 
that no ear had passed thea siiortly before the accident; that she 
knew they were ooBiing to the curve end saw the curve; tnat there was 
quite a pitch in fne aui-ve toward the left; that she first saw the 

•it* iJ«TisfQ©ci floJtaiiX^o «Jii- s^aiiw oo^Ig 9x1^ 'to tHaoa ifle^fiifcsK 
«.t-ri3li «ri;J oi dtigii afliog •ho oj -lo iiix&dt'io i:)o 

.-' iv 9i{;f 'i'io B^jjo £lXA..9Ut..J^iW^nSllti qsj a--. 'Sftt tfitJtoq 

.^irjj; ^I'd" A9vi'ife fl^M*; 4*«»a%X? fx^^^^ ,,. 3** risque.;. -^-^'ct ffffaJl 

*«il* ao *njsfcast9l) J-aaijss* bauo'X x;iift i^'l' .b^-rrj-ooo noioilXoo "^rfi 

t»*iiajjA6 ijXo «rft««iaa sal* %»Ji £iitvr t&39 xtta-i •dt ai p,fli**i:e aaw srili 

gift* no s^-^v-t'ift OJBW fiofidawa i«xi e^t^s d'ijaH .»tcM .q»»I>3.3 aaw oriw 

H'-yawi'i^i saiX 9itt 3atX6l)«'X*8 ,i-i^i/oa saicg ,&*oi si'ci "to ©bis i£i^,li 

UQ std^lib»9tt. BiU wje3 9 A" .sJfilJSid- 'io «©rteX fcnooss hOit ^atx't «£[^ 

^•x>i 94jf ^^i.-ia^.-iw ««W:.««x«|XX--- -f''-« 'to . ■-'* «iol«tf 

;«|*iiaiJ'^ *a9^#8 o« ©-saw eisri^T 8T{;»a ©rfB " .T£jBWxi3|4 fxli If •x9)faMr ©ivt to 

«rio i^flila liifStblooa &iii ^-tj'Hd \:XiTioiia uisil^ 6»aa*q Jb-ari/Xfio oa ^ad* 

oe, adi ;«'n«o arfi- w«a f>njs »rti/o «i» 0* gaJtiaoo e'is>w icaii* wshjI 

other CSX when she saw the headlights as they were going aroutid 
the curve; ehe saw the heRrtlif;ht», there w&g a svfrve ol" th^ir car 
uid then the eolliaien ©oeurr««d. In turnlrio; to the i'i£-ht t'j.«y 
8*tnr#A over loward the west side oi the higiiWBjr, 'ier iiashsuad wa« 
rendexea unooascious by the colli siori sBd died next iaorning »t 

Jaoo'b SehwiBgel, a garage man, testified that he got to 
the seen® of the aecidsnt salDout 11:5C p. m^ ; that Jbiorthiveat 
highway at xhia point ran eoutJaeaet arid riorthwest un^ wae quite 
wide there; that there were I'our isjaae of traffie, tif'o southtound 
and tiro northbound; there were three tilaek lines s€pf?ratinii the 
lanes, the center line hi^iag orange and in the center of the whole 
highway; that -wheri he got to tlie scii.a of the accident he fouiid the 
Plymouth sedan and "D©3oto sedan wrecked ; that the Plymouth eedar* 
was facing west about the eer-tar of th.'r road; the "3eS©to was jast 
off the hip-hway on Parallel road, faoing east; th'^t the Plyiaouth 
waa a felt north of the BeSoto tmi half on one side of the oenter 
line of Korthwest highway and hall* on the other; the rear of the 
Plymouth was eaet of the center line, and the front was weatj the 
DeSoto stood ap-aroxlnvately 38 feet aoiathwest fro.T. the Plyxaoutli; 
the left rear wheel of the BeSoto was off or hroken, -sind the left 
front Wheel of the Plyiaouth ^ms Jmooked off or cruslied lu*n; ifola, 
a laea'ber of the Palatine police fore*, was there \7hen ifitneas ar- 
rived; the cars were towed to wltness.^B garag« via^xn photographs 
were taken of tnem, whioh are in evidence, 

Offiosr Foia testified that fee Jirrlved at the acens of the 
•eoident about 11:15 p. a/; that le saw the two oars, tke one 
facing east off Parallel road, the other f:).«i/ig; v/est tAout the 
center of the highway; the Plyruouth oar vab straddling tiie miadle 
orange mark on the two inner lanes, the front ^hueia in one l&n« 
and the rear mieels ir. the o-.her lane; it v/^s f&oin&' west; the left 

t^o ti9ii^ 'io ffly«»«ra « a«w »t4A'* «s^ii'i:a|.ClMii»ii »fij WAa 9if« j^nwo Sffef 

iitup .a»v SisiA ie!»wii^oa ban SMJu^iiii u^^n mat ialoq, siru. i& \;a-wiijiii 

bnuQ'Jdis^oai owJ ,oi't'I»:Ei' 'to asasl tml st»w «rtsnj ; »i»ri;r »l>iw 

9di-&aiiM%iiqpi» »»is±l dSmJL^ ^at'HiS ©-xevr siaa* ; 6nootfxl3'« o ti ow# fjctft 

V icteo eii* t© sfeie •«© «© tX**i f.<i» 6*o?»<r snJ* Tr© rt***«tt ♦iif s »«w 

itiii 't« i^^i orii fxsair© fiiii* n© 'tXc^ l^as ^wifiisli! jNi»w/<*«d« 1© «nlX 

ftilit }*8«r ajew inott 9di fon^s .Bfliil Tcsdrwo art* 't© *»j»e «jBtr ii#*fO«tl€ 

-iM eaaa^iw ficetttt. oinfii hjcw j^&iol msiilom •olS&U .•.»■.•« « 

R£U.fiiao5txl<,; •tS'dvf »8»'i^ii •a«:.-s«eii^iw ed 6«»«# »«lir' tuiitt- !»«» {fe»ri« 

viliJ lo smoB ■ 9:m $»';.■ ti^rtHtJE »ri tfjBrid' JNii'iJt*»«* Witt's M«ITtO 

&n..: , .; tao ow* «ifi^ «6a »i^' iJ-Ai« r^*!^ ''^J dfjll **?©(?« #n«>fei!>»« 

9ii4 j»«v/a *0»w. aaiojBl noriio sil? .Uoti XoXIj»aa*I I'to *Ba« gnio*:! 

0Xi^ijMt#ii|.8ni.Xth«'x*«i a«'» ia9 .sttwoespeXSi ©flit {x^jRWdaiJi siU lo T:i9#tt»0 

e.a,i oae ai ©X)^»4w iJio*^ »il* ,89a8X «»flni ow* •/!;» ao sfiaa os^w** 

front wheei oi' tii€ Plymoutn was off and tiie l«l't side •was Suiasiiiid; 
the front door was da4.iag«4, CGved in; ths 7?in:iow wa» 'brclrsK; the 
left I'ront headlight vas sri-abitsd: the left front i*ei.'.d&r ou.;leu up; 
the DeUoto had two headligiiti; tiie wnoie left aide '^as pusiied in; 
til® rear wiifjel on tke left gid-i T/as a.u:&ieijed, off;» i)s33tfi tiTid 
tiie riymouth stood approxii-ateiy 25 feet apjirt, tii-- Plymoath being 
eouth of tike Desoto, 

Defendant testified zhat ain i?l.yjaiOutii vjfes ii five paueeijfey 
•©dan; that kr. and Mrs. Bornr'^iiin and LtV , ai'id irs, A^eiskcr "*<dre 
with hi* ue gu.sBts Ir tlie car; .lie had "been traveling the highway 
t'wioc! a week for three years ivid tv/o or tiirei- tirat'S a T^eak for 
over a y=ar besfore the aoei;:.;!nt aiid h ^d driven it both ciay .-Jid. 
night; he aaid that Just "before the aocidcsnt ha v&s ^ravaj-in^, 4 to 
5 fe®t to the rithit of the ulddle li£ie of the entire hitii*ii?ay; that 

he did not at any tiiae gt»t over Lu the uiddla lino or to U.e left 


of the middle line "before the collision tooi: place; Uia^t/ht v?as 

taJ-ing the curve, he Y?ag Loint; 30 to S5 railis tx. hour; chat he -^am 
the o^iier oar juat a few Edconds "before the collision; that as he 
got into tlie curve he oould see the refiecticn of lightu cou;infc; 
but oould not Bee the car tecuuoe of ths xxlc iii the land on the 
right; that Juet ivs he £;ot into about the wcntsr of ti^s curve plain- 
tiff's headligl-ite popped up about 15 feet in i'ront oi hiii»; i.hat he 
swerv&^<5 to the right, tried to ^o for the ditoli, took hit foot off 
th6 gsis ivnd put in on tiae braKes and there v&e a craeh, und that v^ae 
all he could rair'er^ber; he said he had been driving 4 or 5 feet froM 
the center line cai the way frora Cliicago whan he got o^ tiiut hit/iv,s.y; 
that he mi,;:.-.t have swervod to the ri^at or lift orice in aw-iiie; that 
•ome of the tisie he h&d driven in the outer iaiie; no nad been driving 
within ', ov b feet of the center of the highway just 3. ahort distance, 
•ay a biocis: i'rofli the curve; th&t he had passed anouier oar juat a 

,-i>'jiai?.'3rita e^-r 9fei3 i-'rwj. '.Tj .in.* 'tco ser ad^fceia'ti"-! siij lo £9^^jflw ^aoil 

htm o^oKcG «ri* ;'t*io h»xfiaaia» a«* sIjIo j*i»X ad* n« Im»ci\f xaa-i sfiJ- 

^•vl'oSoC.' wil lo rid-jjoa 
91&* issiaie^ iialt-fcn* ■ .ill fiitts-iwwi'a'oa ••,feT:ll f^ite ,^K sTftrf^ ;fM»l#&« 

0? t^ a^^iiw'/Bi* eat; »if *ai»fci:o«'a wLt 'Oitolscf *awt *JW*^ 5iae ?/t it4^a 


w«W ■»i£'*aria- .-itfoii rw 'a&Xiia Sfi: »* OS :a«i,da''B«w»il ,«fl/irtMa ail* jaiai** 

arflaioo ad-fiijiX '*o itaiJaoX'tftt »rftf «»ai J^Xj^ioo «ii »"»"i:bo oiW oJ-ai Jos 
©dd- CIO hiiei drf* rti »ai:t axW le «saA;jffltt»rf -tiKS »ifef »p>a Son bluoa iud 

f>/I J-ajiJ- ;xifiii £0 i'aoi't ax *»»1 aX Juwtfa <i« Mqqct^ etifSiXJte-JXf a'ftl!* 

no tool ^"itd -i'Toi ^doi-Jif «rii ird'i o^ oJ- A^lt* ,#rf3lt »rf* «i fc»Tt«w« 

a«i!« *jiiti.t Jbii-v; .ilajB-xo jfe aisr?? «*l»fet* fca* »9Jl*Tttf t»tf* zxo fli ^ug hao bm^ »di 

wo-xl ;^»9't a 10 fr ^^aJivltb a&mH had mA »i.ea •!£ ;Tt«tfji3r&/aFti foX«wo srf XXs 

;-<;^.yx:^irf *£>/i* ilO Jrog 9d 'tttdnt <i:^t>i£(Sl MOlc't x«w «*** J;X<} ©OiX T©;^CI©o 9iii 

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 ot an th« lir^e, he replied, 
"So, sir, next to the center line"; when asked lay the coroner why- 
he was traveling next to the center line he replied, "Well, I had 
passed a oar about a quarter of a mile 'back;*in reply to a question 
from the coroner as to whether it took him a quarter of a mile to 
get 'baek, he ianswered, •'Well, I did not think it waa necessary to 
swing over when I Game to that curve, because I figured I could 
make it on that lane all right"; when asked if there was any traffic 
to keep hiffi from traveling in the outer Ian© hg replied that there 
was not, and admitted that at the inquest, in reply to a question 
from the coroner as to whether he could give any reason why he was 
not traveling in the outside lane at the tiite, he replied, "Well, 
none other than I was making the turn, ;^d probably you ^o a little 
out of your way when you make a curve. The one I took to follow" — - 
Ihe witness also said he had testified at the inquest that he did 
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 ^&b 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 w&y of the 
car as soon is he saw it there, he replied, "Well, I don't know 
whether I was getting in his way or he •!7as getting in my way," In 
response to a question by his own coui^ael he further said that he 
testified at thecoroaer's Inquest that he knew he was not over the 
center line, uid replying to a question by the court as to what 
partioi;\ar reason h - had to observe where the orange line v^as before 
the accident and up t© the time of it, he replied, "Well, I know 
that curve, and I know you have to be cautious of it, because I 
have made it several timee, axid there have been an awful lot of 
accidents at that curve. I observe the lines all the tisie I am 

|)d3La«t i»xfw ,#a9«pttl; a'aextcxo^^ arf* #« ;^«-£lvt bias «££ jtasfeloo* oifd' 

,691X90:1: 8x1 ,»iiii «itf c» *i:o ©nix Ttai-rifto srij 0* *ac«^n aaw gri' "t&fttsxfw 

Viw Tencioo sdi Tc«r JS>saI»i3 aofiw ;»s>aix te©*xw>«) oiii oi ixfutx ,tJta ,oK* 

b&d I i II®W" ^fcftiiQ-©-! ®ii @aiX -xs^fiflo ©fief e:J ^x©n ^jniZ^r&ti bm* &d 

aoiis^up & Qi ■VjXqs'X ai*;^scf ©Xifli js 'to n&iimap » Jiio> fesi^aecf 

oi ©iiffl £' to isi'xetip B ssiiii itoocf cfl 'S9Xi*9f{w od" a« tam'^^ti '^^f mot't 

0^ iCit«eB0o©n asw jtl iisiii;^ itan bll^ I «XXsW" ^/lis-^swane oil .riocrf *©§ 

bluc'j I .fc»iij;siX't I «8x;^©-3cf .©ttiuo lj8il# o:t ssjjao I n»xfw ^sro snlwa 

©i'tlaa* Tjas saw »i3di ti feeatae n«ilw '"j-iiti^i-i; £i£ intei iMdi uo ii 5>Leio 

ot&di ,i&iii .bsiXqet sa aacX i^iuo oM* isi 3jaiXarjBT:# awTt't atiH q*»i od' 

eew »ii Tfiiw aoaaex x"** ©via 5X«oo sxi *i»ilj^!j!iiw od" a/j "x^no-xoo eifct aioil 
^XXaW". ,|>siiXqen »xi ,8iiix^ 9^ iA •cuX tJbXai^i/o •/(} i^ii ^^allsretf .ton 

, — -*'?/oXXo*t o>. 2iOoJ -t aao 91IT .aviwo Ji »3i*ffl «et i-«»/{w ie«w t»©^ 'to *wo 

%Qia.99 9di ao a Xasu'sr 9ili^ . 'i« •a* iiilv,' %a£X9v«tt!f iaw tjbo aiii rr^cal ton 
li&l iJ&Xii xavo s««r tjt ifijtii^ #oa ^i£ bsM xi^ion Si^^oS a^v *ri ai eoll 

qM 'to "ijsw sfii 'to iUQ *»a v^iT: SIa* ©jff Tjnw 0* aa TC»ao1t03 •^;f»q«lb ■•/{* 
woiOl ^'noJ:! I jiXsW" ,fe©XXq«i 9x1 ,97;9iW ^i wjea 6xi a^. no©» a* lao 

»ai ifivo ioa saw eii paint a4 i*ii;» i9»upnk n^'ifat^tooeiii &b t^fit'tlisot 
iaxiv oi a« iiuco axl* ^tf «oi^BOWp « ©^ a«itXq9"i iwa*- ,*ini:X ^«»*n9o 

io J6X, Xa1w« «• aaatf 9v«fl 9't9di ba^ ^aamii X«:tsr98 *1 9t>.&Bi btaiI 
mm I flol* &iii XX« a»iUX 9d* »TTt0acfo I ,9Tiuo :f«xJ^ i« B*n9fel©©« 

driving on higJ^iways," 

itrs, Bornman, called as a, witness by defendant, testified 
that 8he did not know what part of xhe highway they were driving on 
just before the accident, and that she lid not know anything about 
the accident except that it ooeurred on a curve, 

Mrgi, Keiaicer testified that defendant and his guesta were 
traveling on the righthand side of the hignway, cut she did net 
see the other car before tae accident, ahe was talking; ai the 
time; that when she looked up the iighte hit her in th(? eyes and 
that was all she remembered until slie ♦•woke up" in the hospital. 
She admitted that at the inquest she ha-d said she could not tell 
very much about it; that she was just starting to talk to i^rs, 
Bornman, turned around and the lighte flashed in her eyee, and that 
wao all ahe could remember. She admitted having signed a statement 
to the effect that she was talking to Mre, 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 ©r outer lane, 
on a curve or straightway, when liguts flashed, and on looking up a 
crash occurred. 

Walter Keisker's testiiiiony was t.^at ho too was in the back 
seat in the car, and that the car in vfhioh ne v?as riding was about 
three feet froifi the canter line of the hi^ihway before the accident; 
that the collision occurred about that distance frovi the center of 
the road; that he was not paying any attention to the driver; he 
had elgncd a state^^-ent to the effect that he did not know which 
ve.ii«le i.-ot over the center line, as he Hierely saw the headlights 
of tha other car i.uid no other details or road signs, 

Walter Bornman testified that defendant's car ^aa 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 

ao s^sxlrl'sb STiaw ^s^^J" ^fiw^i^^jixl sil^J' 'id J"Si}^ tssrfw yeai i'oa jblij axis :i,sil.t 
J-wocfji a«ij:i*xae 'w'orcsi: ton bib »d& ,tMiii boo «in«»|>loo» '.idi ©to'tacf disut 

©•saw ed'asus airl ftcus J'iiBJ&nstsiJ& ifigitj- i>9i'li;t«9* itsisldii «$tc::, 

3'©n ffif) 9ria jx/'i ^%Bifd^M «ri* to a&ia feaerf^i^^lit ajat^r.C)©' sa-El'-'V^-'i- 

©j&^iijB gKlilfii^ ««w 9fia .tcieBioo-is ail* 8io1*€f xeoi»xJ*o stdi ;■«;, 

fcaj8'«3-\j9 !9il# nl -xdxi *1J otriail Hxi;;^ qxj £»s2£ooX aria asxfw Jjjjcf? ;»,ffl£^ 

.Xfiiitjsoii axf* aJt "qw slo*" 9Jla li^^au l»»i*vlnitBi«0'i siSe Lla 8»w ^jsxtt 

iadi i>na ,83\;9 rtsxl rfx bsiiael't uSii^il oris bac fcoi/otija hentiu^ ^smtaa'xoS. 
iaasi6&£>is.B fcd£i2jia aaivsd bs^S-iai^i? 9£® ♦'s&d'm»m#i bli/oo sde lla 6«w 

lo *ii5(i *«Jiw ^QKUt *o« bib ^^UQ aaiicol #on a«vv ,*4!9« lasi ^'iaX dxiJ' 
,siuil 18C)- 1)0 '10 li&fmi oxf* Hi x»fii6iiw ,ax s«i-toT«i* ^lew ■\j9iIiJ' b^ot srf* 
e qa gnljiooi no fens ,J&»ria*iX'i s^iisll rasiiw ,T5E»!sr;r£is££"i;^a 10 ®viU9 B_fl© 

JjjoJfi 8«w sfllbii ««w &Xi iU) iii»? ni -ijb© »«S' ajaxl- tcu: ,riiQ »iiJ- ai d'£oa 

srf ••xsriifc »iii oi aal-^mtta ta« gHi^gBty t^a aav «ii J^ii* jfwaoi ©lii 

rioixiT* ^OKi d-on l>lli 9ti tradi *o»'no •ltd oi *Ms:ii»d«*8 « Aaoj^ia £>«it 

atrf^ilXf'jiOii »jt^ ■»«« -^cXs^sm «4 @« ,9£SlX ti»*«90 offer ««vo Joa sXairvOv 

.eiaaia ^01 to ^llaiob 'L9iiic on t>ii.^ ijao i«^I^« eal*, to 

3«iecf asyr xao 9^ imhast^h i&H^ b&i'lliatii mwrtoS. iBils^ 

«KiX S31M10 »ri;^ '10 Sii^l-i 9iii OCT to iBBB i^s't 5 ^0 * ^«odfi naviib 

the wheels were atout a foot and a half "this aide oi' the line*; 
that they were traveling about one loot to the rit^nt ol' Uie cen- 
ter of the line; he had sitpaed a written statement to the eifect 
that when the crash cam* defendant was in the inner lane, the 
left of his car one foot or one aiid one -half feet to Ihe right 
of the canter line, but tnat ne did not see tne cexiter line as 
he was not paying attention to it ae they took the curve; that 
the speed hefore they started the curve was 40 miles au nour; 
that it was slowed up as tney reached tne inner lane« 

Such heing the evidence as to the f^^tcte, this aeKiaa to be 
a case where it is sjost appropriate that tne issue of fact 
should be best left to the j'udgment of a Jury, una it ia quite iiia- 
pOBsible for this court to say, in view of the verdict wnicii has 
■been approved by the trial Judge, that it is against wie jiianifest 
weight of tne evidence, 

UoT do we think there was reversible error in the adiuis- 
Bion of evidence, Police officer i'olis and police coimuissiioner 
Sehmidt testifying for plaintiff, said tnat on tne eiorning after 
the accident they exatained a tire iuarJc on the highway; that the 
tire mark was about 60 feet long, extending from the southeast on 
the west or left side of the road; that it tnen 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 concrete, I'olz first visited 
the scene of the accident iaaaediately after its occurrence at 
11:10 p, a, r*rid again the next morning at about nine o'clock. 
Sohmidt gave similar testimony. Defendant objected to tnis tes- 
tisuany, out it was admitted. Ai^terward, on motion of defendant, 
this evidence was stricken out and the jury instructed by the 
court t© disregard it. 

Waiter Bornman, who was a witness for defendant, testified 

I'^^all arid- '1(5 sB2u &Mi^ 'iLt>ii :: - ';: & iijoi ®iaw aXssrl^ &df 

;ii aii;;r ^ ^ t?1»B ♦Jaeo' xleWio exLJ a»xiw d^azi* 

j-i.„.vi. ■v.iw Off j©ti^'*fjBxi-9iio jjiJij 9«o *(* totrr •wb itftt 'tt'itf'Trfif"- »"!:*' jC' 

8« s>aiX>i8Jrtfto "§il*- sea ■ J an BIJS'' W' 'ir*ii#' Ji^ Vertl"/ i •&& 't© 

ifail^ jsTauo »ii* jfoW 'V;siia- ae H' oi tiotfSminm "^aixmq ten ajjir »il' 

««il itoJrtLw Jsiiiisr sxf* to wisiv ax ^^i^s 0$ iruot alrf* lot •^irf2««oaf 

iKjjd' iqu^tdM aa siwsia nsiid' lit d^BiiJf {Iwaot ©^ la >'£«! f* ttsw «i{jf 

I«t;9vs8 -io't item laHs i:, nl bahm has *»*■* Lbi-sysb net' tttsW' ©jf* of 

feeiiaiv Jtti's: sXoU .f&^siaiioo 9tii fit* flolsBid'li IM f«»rt'llicia »•»! 

jH oondt-xi/oso •#! 'x»r£« YXdfAlMnttei fmbioom djc£# ttf sBeoB eti^ 

•xl» ^ijf JbeioincJafll: i^Wt ft^ t>Bji *««> aoatoii^ta b«w •oasMTa aW* 


in defendant's iDehalf witiiout 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 scratch into the 
paving. It started about the center of the two lories on the right- 
hand side of the road and led alraoat up to tne orange line in the 
center of the road," On cross examination he testified that he 
thought the namee of the officers were Schmid: and ii'olz; "We all 
looked at the line; there was JBst one line there," 

We are of the opinion that tiiis evidence laid a sufficient 
foundation for the evidence with reference to the laarkB and the aJtid 
which was given in behalf of the plaintiff. Bentaen. Adra'r y . 
ijmSJS.* 285 111. App. 582, it is true, as defendant points out, 
that where evidence itiaterlally 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 jdoe reasons set forth in 
Peopl e, y ^. Wh it e , 365 111. 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 coiaplains that the conduct of the trial 
Judge was prejudicial to defendant throughout the trial. J'e have 
given careful attention to the matters complained of, but find no 
reversible error in this respect, 

ji'or the reasons iiidioated the judgment of the trial court 
is affizisaed* 

O'Conner and kcSurely, JJ, , concur. 

' 9£S At lit ia-r ■,.:^aia%Qai ixBa eiH cut taobloom 9di 'to 9n»o« 

:t1t>l's.yr :ioj3 tittii i" ; rtliarie tiW baa leolTto 

-dxigi-x r- ' ., ' . :■ 7' q 

•M .tfin* isei'iitBSi srf flolJijuijiUBXs aaoio nu ",fe«oi a. ,ta»o 

■IX* •W* V*"io^ ^«« ii>ijjsxiftg iiltaw tis^oi't'i-. j-iicyuori;}- 

. r l^riJbA .a6<i#n>t .: , " *; .■ ." -Ijs Ic ax'j io 'tl^tntd al navXa baw xioidw 
■ ,j|^■i/6 e;tnio(j Jaafexii^'ltJi. «« ,vii%i al *1 .263 .qq[A ,111 682 .syj^na^ 

nl lid-xo't *98 saoaaei Mfat: loi l-ii-A^ielb o* TCi"t «il* jjnlioeti.b 

*flr{;f 9i3iiw «a£0 oa lo //oni , , .J.I ddf, 4 Siii?3LjtZ_.*iiI2*3 

aoXiUgo axi* to ««' jni'vairei sii* anarfir Aallgqa n9»(f n&ri elm 

•liii* jSXoxi''aW .dXdlaalfflfejs ioi'i ni bjbw ne^ioi^Jt* aoiisfcl :'^rli 

^j'oecfaai aidi Hi Ttoarta on p«w 
Xxiii *^ 'to Joi/Jbfloo ©it* .]«iii aaisLcuBioo aifcoslaG 

on 6a. , . -%Biiim • - . ' ■- ■ ■■-■'■'iy^ 

.;j03Qe- li T«ni»a •XflHaieven 



Dei'endsuit in Error, ) 

V s , ) 

) OiP CiilCAGO. 


Plaintiff in Srror. ) 

29 I.A. 605^ 


Jo/iTi iiazoe, oy leave cl' ccurt, lileo. an inf orji.^t ion in 
the naae ox liie People against defer-darit, Louis Treksl ictis, 
charging hii. Tith vicls-tion of sections 48 and 49, chep, 121, 
page 2792, 111, St&te Ltats. , 1935, it' t-bat he drove a t'sjcicab 
iii Chicago with willul and wanton disrt!fc;ariS for the sal'ety of per- 
iions or property c^6 at a greater speed than v&s recscnable and 
proper, having re^iard to the trai'fic tjad ufce of tiie way; he 
was driving at a speed of 35 niie*? ;-Ui hour, coutrury tc the stat- 
ute. Defandau-t entered a pioa of not t,uilty, waived a uriai by 
jury, the oasa v/aa heard, def tv.dant v/as found j^ dlty unj aerxtenced 
to the county jail for a ter.a of ten i&ys. 

Jiefandant contends that the evidenoe was not only insuf- 
ficient to prove hiia guilty "boyond a reaeonabla doubt, whicn the 
law requires to warrant a conviction, but that tne finding of 
guilty is ./,anifesbly against the weigit of tha evidence; that the 
trial court erred in substituting his personal knovsledge and ex- 
perience in lieu of evidence, 

Txie record discloses that at about 6:15 in tne ^.fternoon 
of August 12, 19 36, deferidant was driving uia cab south in Clark 
street at or near tne Intersection of Demog place, an east and 
west street, whea he struci. and injured Johii j:.ozae, liefendant 
liad picked up sor^e passengers at the iildgew^tcr Ueaou hotel and was 
taking thea to the Morrison hotel in the downtown district, me 


.lomS. ni. ' ~ 

.aiTDisAaaat- 8IW0J 

cfeoix^* A ©rot? * t- ,S§VS5 asa^ 

-i»q 'io -i^^s'tes ^r'" TO*t &T:s39:r«l^ ^no*u- i ■ , .. ;• ^lifoli^ -i': 

has alefsn^E... u^idi fesft'jf?; i»,t«»9*i:3 « #^ kn.'-^ ••i&t^qo 

: - . ; v.. . - <'t»<10'*1 

ix^IO ax xiJ'i/os cf£0 aii-. ^aivinl) s^w lnj»l>ii^'l»fc ,.B£feI , - ---...- ' - 
fcfw dees nt .sojaXq: sifliaMsO: *to aotiaieiviat ^Ai 'ZM':>a to Js i99ii* 

saw fcn/.; lo^o/I -or,©! i&i^.ifs^b'^ »xl. -■ fts^^a^'d fiBfi 

day •was bright an-l clear and the streets dry. 

t-oaae testii'ied that he o&Hie out of the drug store located 
on the west aide of Clark street a short distance north of Deming 
placa, «here he was employed; that he v/aa delivering; a package 
carried under his arsi; that he started to walk acroes Clark 
street and stopped at the crosswalk; that a northhound street oar 
had Just 6to?pred at the south side of Beming place; that a south- 
"bo'ond Etreat oar "pulled up at the corner and I started to cross 
the street; " thdt he walked in front of the southbound street ear 
and when he reached the east rail of that traok 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 
85 feet in front of the street car; that the street cars do not 
atop at the corner bat stop a little farther back; and that he 
Nvag severely injured, 

Georga Jiay, called by Tlie 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 ^^as 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 iiour; that the cab came around on the left side of the south- 
bound street car. On cross- ejcamination he testified that he did 
not know the injured toy but knew he worked at tne drug store; thit 
he knew the boy's father; that he noticed the northbound street car 
had stopped on tne south side of Deuiing place to discharge passend 
gers; "The boy was stariding in the car rails, on the west side;" 
that sStfiT the accident the cab caae to a atop on the west side of 
Clark ar.reet. 

Defendant testified he was driving a Yellow cab south in 
Clark street, having picked up some passengers at the Edgewater 
Beach hotel, and that as he approached Deming place "the boy was 

«;g«::io^cf « 3nit«vi Xel) saw sil ^«riit ;lie\;f»i:<ia» a^nr «rf jf'StBifw ,6ojiX.<; 

2tx»iy sBOtojB sfiJsiw ot f^'^:?'^: Site »r{ *4Siii.t lans nld i»!l>c!ij fisi-siad 

xeo isBXia bcwodriito^i ■ ; -;wsaoio edi its fca>q<?tJ.}'8 bns vt-'iSTd'a 

"diuos M ii^i^ looale afllia«<I lo o&ta riifwoe sdy i'^ barrqoitis ^awi, bfid 

aeo'io oj fced-iaJe I f^rta isntoo ?>fi.t ^.^ qsi b9l£uf^ t/jo ;ts9ita bcmo€ 

1A0 Jeatita iinuocfxl^uos »riw .i. b&:!lla'v sii i&x/J " ,-.t3f?"iJ-R erf* 

X<i iLotsxie Sfiw 94 jto«Tt# ^a4^ 'to Xlaa .+bcj> vnii feeiio/joa *rl nsrfw Jbmt 

Sri i&di itQS-xiii jLimIQ to HoJ:«xr t&v ■ ;cfA'oiXB* dxl;f 

*oa o£) ei»o d'aa'x^i <>x{^ ^jgtrid' ;n«o Sf^o-xts Qiii to taort at ies't es 
Qd istii pap ;;ie£jcr r&dSiM'l sljri;! ;« qo*iSJ J^tief ismoo ©ii* d^* ^ote 

9x1^ ;^« ^«jcU f>eJ'iJ[:*89* ,8lqo9l Sii'i' ^ef i)sXX60 ,i&i>ii 6^*10? C 

me-xl: iso't xie 8«»r 1 .£oJji5'a sje?. »£( nfxlw 's;qifif si^t w«e I .j-ssrtj-e 

Bsljtisi S^- iuodB iJ-fi Ttao 9di 'to sfcia JaBS io ttsX. ^sit no n»o i99tia 

-diuos &dt 'to 9b te t't9l *ii* ao bauoti& diaeo oTbo 3di ii&di iiuod om 

bib 9ii SMdi b&i'tliH^i f>d aoi*anii!UJiCf--iR;.i-i-j nO ,ibo iaatia bnuofS 

cfM* ;®io*a ^mb on* *« fcsji^ow -n w^n:: i fedtw^aJt *:!* vomL ioa 

i«o *s$i;te bauodfiJTrcon 9Ai b9t>L. ; •■.'J«^ a'xarf ©^^^ w®-"^-^ ®^-^ 

S»n©sa©q •s'lJBrioai.t! oJ ©s*5Xq a^i'^^a^ '^o «*^2 xauoa 6iti no fiaqgo^a bA.'^i 

";0,fcia :-99w 9il* ao .•ft'ci t^o »tii nJt aatfeiiedr^ a^w Tcotf »xiT" j«^«8 

'to e&i« ^e^'' »^i^ no ci^' *^'"=® ^^'^^ '"^ iu»fcioo« «xJi »s?-*^ *«4* 

ia:itt«««.<f«o woXi»i: « aaXvi^t e nx;tas* trnj5i>ii6'Ii>a 

<xs*.ew«a6a: sxU *« 8TC9S,"088Jsq •XU08 «iJJ &©Xolq jialred ,*«ot*8 siiaXO 
^otf 9rf** •OBXq aai««<I |>«iiOBOTaq« ari 8b i&df bim ^If^Sod riofl^S 

off the sidewalk a few feet looking in my direction, I saw him. 
Thinking he was waiting for rue to go hy. Ail of a sadden ^*^ he 
girea a run" out in front of the cab; tuat defendant was traveling 
then ahout 18 cr 20 miles an hour; that he did not paea any stand- 
ing Bouthhound street oar; that there was no southbound street car 
in front of him at that time, *^n cross-exataination h« testified 
that after the accident he talked, to a polio® officer at the sta- 
tion, where he said he could not have been going at a speed of 
more than 25 mil^s; there were two passengers iii the cab and he 
was taxcinc them to the Rorrison hotel; that he was not going 25 
mileo an hour; that he first saT/ the "boj'' when he was ahout 50 
feet from him; that there were automociles parked along th«^ west 
curb; that he did net paes to the east of the southbound ear be- 
cause there was n© such car there at the tiine; "as the toy made 
the break to get in front of me" he was frosa 3 to 10 feet away, 
and that defendant applied the "brakes and stepped. 

At the conclusion of the deferidant'a teatimony th«> cass 
Was continued for a few days, and ■^^h&n the hearing was resumed 
counsel for defendant stated to the court that he had soxae witnesses, 
and had subpoenaed another witness by the na;ae of Gordon, but when 
Gordon was ssrred he atatftd he would not come unless a police offi- 
oer v^rent after him. 

Ratl-^h Blacicstook, 2all?d by defendant, testified that he 
was the motorman on the nort ■iboimd etreet car at the time in ques- 
tion; t'lat he saw the acoident; that tiae cab was being driven south 
in th«; southbound atr^st car track; that taera was no 30uthD und 
street car near Dealing plaoe at that time; that he stopped his car 
at th* south side of Beming plaoe :jxi:'\ just as ne ^/as coiain^t, to s 
stop, "I loolfed across to Hie left ai'iA there was a young lad 
dashing off the curb; he was struck by th© Yellow cab;" that ther« 
was no somthbound street car there to interfere with the driving 

@d *** tmhbs^'s M 'io 11a .-^rf o;5j ©^ ■■ii^ a^w sjK grjiaitiiiiT 

ymevjn-xJ a«w iil«^^?»"isft ;f,«f<J' ;d'co Si.: .or't. al iuo "mn: « eari^ 

-JbneJa x^^-i easq . o4* {'X|re«[ a« «<*Xlm OS to 8X Juotfis a&tii 

•£1 i^Ais dH& 9£Li at ei3i>-^asa&sq ovt snaw- 9%»sii iSi»ltBi QSi mdi ^laai 

^aj»w »jd[;r ;gaoX« JbasLct^sc^ n^lX'SoioaiuB. 9%^'^ _tf%m4i ifmis \mXd moi'X ^»»1 

,V;jawB iee'i 01 oi -:. jflt:)i*i aew arl "•« Io laoii^ lit . il;»8 , OJ' iasicT ©4* 
.bQq_qpSin htm B.»i«<X(;f VjeU f>a4X9q« .^ael)£U^^9£> ^^^^ii hOiSs. 
©ajBu "i-w >4uvM:u:vfa»<}" a'^^oa^as'lajfe aifct to naJtajuXoa^^ *rf^ *A 
Aeaufaa-x saw jjatiiJdxl »|14- aaxiw J&a«,,8x;»£ ^^Tt « leTc Jbaaot^Jtioa sjbw 

-ilto sciXo^ £ aaaXiiu ©iaod ::o;i fci. '^ fctTiSf ,•#?. jBoJbapt) 

.flitf Mi-Is |n»w te© 
9£t iMii^ htt-fiUtfi ,^imWfi't»h %4^,h»Ll£.G ,3fsc<j-a3l3£XS 4%i«^ 
-aajtrp cJt dfi(^4,aj|£i^ ;rja, ^i£a j-t;«n:<ta JbjnjJo<Ca#i«iA. a^^^n^i cu^-xo^om ^x;i:^ caw 
«£#««« acTlTfc: 3^iatf sjaw cjjeo swct ja'.^Is- ;irmJbie»4»:,#4i!l',.V«|,5»irf:i|.l^;>-i«C 

xaa aid taqqo^e »xl *#ii* ;»iai* d-^ifl *^ (PSjEXif |kOi«»ff ?«fa xaa *«>dT/a 

©f the cab; that after the boy t&s struck the cs.b stopped at from 
25 to 30 feet> 

S.lward Todd, called by derendauxt, teetilied that he was the 
oonduetor on the northbound ftreet caa* at the xuie in question; 
that the car was just coiuing to i^ stop at Deciing plt.ce; thut he 
heard a sound as il' eomething wae hit and he locked up tiCd taw the 
boy had been struck by the cab; "1 seen the boy was carrying some 
kind of oof lee cr soup ?^hich viae spilled on the, rife of the car; 
that practically is ell I saw, When I got off the ttreet csir there 
vuB no southbound street car there;" that he did not see tl:e boy 
etruck but saw hiiri just afterward; that seme southbcund street care 
came un a couple of minutes afterward. 

At the conclueion of this witnese's testiaony, counsel fQ^ 
defendant said, "I have another Tritness, if the ooart waj^its to hear 
him," The Court: *It doean't make any difference," 

Sari Anderson iras then called by defendant snd testified 
that he Tvitnessed the accident in question; that hs Tas sitting in 
the drug store on the northwest corner of Deming place and Clark 
street; that he knew the ccaiplainint iPitnece, John Kaxos; tiat he 
did net see any southbound street car at the time of the accident; 
that rafter the boy was struek the cab pulled to one curb and ^ulte a 
ero'^d gathered around, and a few minutes afterward there were south- 
bound street ears; tnat he sav the accident; that he was sitting in 
the drug store eating his dinner; that he turned arotmd and saw the 
aeoident "ri^it straight throut^h tne door at the comer;" that he 
saw thu boy leave the drug store and start across the str<^et; that 
lie didn't think the bay saw the cab; that he ear the boy knocked 
into the 9tre3t« 

At the conclusion of this -^'itness's testijiiony the court 
•aid: "I tried to keep my own personal experience out of the con- 
sideration of this case, in deciding this case, I know the street. 


qqoiei a 


BJSr *,.. , 


r- '^- ■- 

Bii J.;J;'.; 

; so -.1^, u 


' \i^ 

J : it; : 11,- LaiJ 

"sii jfiTso sxi;f 'to 
,*®e't 05 oi SS 

ifil-jsG L^ qovfa * 0* sjaleioe i'sut 8«* i«3 ^<^ ijidi 

■iici saw aajfcilisiflof} tl «« fiat/oa « bxa^xif 

6.0108 sal-\£i*EJBa asw %ocf •x0 aesa I" ;dj!o' skf -^crf 3foif1;^8 a-i&d bad ^od" 

jiiso olU to sfcla ftilj ho fteirJtiiii aJBW rioirfw <juoa 'lo soi'too 'to 'oali 

s-xari* xsso j-'>ji7.! -jjviJ- 'rtc J-Qs I iBWrfW ' ,w«« I ILs si N:,XI«oJitOfiiq[ imif 

Xod 3^'J- -J 9 a i'on btb ^d *ru-;j "jftirii y-^i3'8 bmii^ddiuQa on b«w 

.£>ifiWT£&artB as^'mtim to alqMod » qu Bta&b 

io"i #9«;K:"o^ , Yito3il Js* J e'usg>n.tiw eixij 'to noiauXdfiob" ftiiJ d'^ 

£tl ^ait$k9 ttAir sd fMdit ;aoi^B«up ni ta»bi.9Qd 9di h999»ativ 9d t»Jit 
:it.aL'0 bitB 9osIq ■^alsasG to laaico iSB^iiod 9ili no *io*e awTcfc srf* 

jd'iidfclooe »xii to swiJ 9iii is X8o ^J-soa^a finiiodrfiiios ^«s aea *aa £iiA 

c 9ilap baa dijuo anj oJ' foallMq: 'i«o «fii' jfo«'S#8 a^w ^o*!^ •£** isd-l« t&tiS 

-siiuoa oiaw i'lsii^ bt&viei'i& aatfenxiE wa't « ^nj^i ,btiKoXB b9i9dts^ bvoi9 

ci Silt* J la aj3w eri JjBrl?^ jit.ioMoo* ■srU'' nsie ©xf cTarf* ;aiAO #«©t;^8 JbairocT 

9tii wjas fcruj Jbi-UfOta Raa ; uiit aid ^ni^Ae sioi-a sinf. erW 

ftd ;tax£vJ ".-asmoa sxlJ ts roob ailJ .i .jucncvt:? #i:i3i*i*« tfCjjii" Jaefe-roo* 

d'firi* ;j9STC*a ©if;!' asotbJB #0*3*8 bxte sioJe a^tS aJcI,. ^^otf t*ii* "»«« 

fta^fooml xod art* wjsb^ tri ^A/ltf jdaa' aitt Wa xcxJ »^ aliii'ii* :^•nbj;6 •d 

^TiiJOJ ariJ x^oaiXtQ9i a'aaaocriw aMJ- 'to noiaifionoo odi tsv. 
.noo ©ili 'to :>uo «o«sii9<pc* Lafloa^eiJ two ^s qaaat oi Bali* I* :l>x*» 
a^aa^^a 9di V6a£ I ,»M!x eirf* saJtfriaefc ai .«s«o al.i* 'to aol**»W« 

so well, I know the conSiticns tto«re, I aa. not at all satisried 
with the ator/ told "by the defendant and certainly not "by the 
testimony oi Uie rritnessee, or witness that -aid he aavr a stand- 
ing street oar there, that maxi was subject to a charge of perjuyy 
and the young man didn't see anything- exoept he ^vas hit. he didn't 
knoD^ what happened to hici, I am going to enter a fir. dine;- of 
guilty for reckless driving. It is one oase where they struck 
Bometody. Ten day? in the county jail. " Thereunon counsel for 
defendant stated that hf» would like to have the ritnese whuj,' he 
had sunpoenaed "brought in. Th*^ Court: "What other witness, why 
you had three witneesss here? The street car Eicn, both of them, 
they absolutely refute the testimony of the b»xi. He said they 
saw him pass around on the left side of ei. stanr^inc street car," 
Counsel for defendant: "That'p the plaintiff's testimony, they 
refute that." The Court: "Iknow that, t:^ey didn't see the accident 
but the motorrasua saw the young fallow struei, sbt; him crossing the 
street. This young man was going too fast on Glark Ptreet and on 
Broadway the same way they all do all tne tiirie. JBow I don't want 
to haTQ that influence Eie, ay ovm personal eaq)eri cnce is sufficient. 
^0 further argument," 

Proia the foregoing etatenierit of the court we thir^k it clear 
the court did not believe plaintiff or th^ witness, kay, called by 
hiiB, when they testified that the taxicab drove on the aaat side 
of a southbound car; but that he did believe the ffiotorrean and other 
witnesses ^'ho 3a;id that there was no southbound car there at the 
tiBie. 'f«> think it is also apparent that the court found the de- 
fendant £;uilf.y because the taxicab was being driven too fast and 
that th»y drive "on Broadway the same wa^." all the time; that his 
own personal e:xperience was 8ufficiex.t. ^bvioauly the court's 
personal experience as to how taxicabs were driven on Clark t^treet 
was not evidence upon which to predicate a findin,, of guilty. 

Xli^fs«« "*o as'X^x^o .6 ci;? *o»t<«». sjbw ,iiai8 *«ii* ,-*TtexW ico :f99'^it.9 -^a^ 
il'atib f.. ,4ifi a*'." ojti *qsox« '^ixxdhTjOe &«« *^ iifrife n«m amro'^ »il* baa 

•il rtJOxiw a8»a:fir~jy erf* svijri o* a:^!! ijJCuow -id icn* J^s.j'isi'a ^nc hnslafe 
XJ^w ,na9tt*l'^ •sa.'Uo oJsd¥,» :j-t«f©3 sriX ,ixl tsi'^aotd^ Jb9jja»oqcf«8. fe«rf 

"♦SAO ■**'!»T:*a 3fli6ajB*e js ^a o&Jta 3*i»X srit.ap femrcxa 8a«s '^iri wss 
&a»biQo:s qlIS 9&a *lffl&ii? t«-a* ,*«^* w«mi IP Uii§}«)0 sjjfSf •»,*axi* s^iflsi 

,*a»iox't'iiJ8 ai 9oa9ln©Q?;9 isaoaaaq owe Y/"«- *®^'^ eamurtal ^juiS ©Tjarf o* 

»fela d-aa© sr-* ii<»v.twriD|cb sfediaca;^ ©rfa *&ri* b6i'UJ?s# x»^ aaew »«W 

»£« d-jo 0T9ri;r ^jso fenyod-fi^jK©* ©^ saw ^-xdri^-. *aiS* fcijea «lf*- a^SQSaJXw 

JE>afc *as.'t 00^ mrixk soisxf a«57 deoixs;)' 9^ 9 9J.Kso0«f ^*Xi«s JJ^flfifia©! 

exxi ;r*i« \9i^i »n;f iX^ %\;«w oiOBe &di ^wb^o^a no« ©^^l'r^ ^*rf# *«ri* 

a'd'iuoa axil ^XajJoirtiO .iaeJtoi.rtws saw 9o«®l-ioqx© X^noei^q awo 

Before one can be found guilty the law requires that this be 
shown by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The personal Jsnowledge 
of the judge who tries the case cauinot meet the requirement of the 
law that proof of necessary facts shall be made, 

'ilie judgjaaent of the Municipal court of Chicago is reversed, 


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



.dSSHST^ XiiaMiKluX. 



(Plaintiff) AppelJee, 
ELMER E. OOWDHEY, (Impleaded), ) / COOK OOUHTY, 

(Defendant) Appellant. ) ^ «7 U J.«ii» v) U ^ 



This is en appeal from a judgment entered in the Criminal 
Court of Cook County, wherein the defendant Elmer E, Gowdrey was 
found guilty p-nd eonvioted for having violated the Motor Fuel Tax 
L?w of 1939, as amended in 1931ii 

Count 1 of the indictment charged th?t the defendant 
Elmer E, Cowdrey and one Howard E, Adama on or about November 1, 
1931, and continuously thereafter during the raontlSt of November of 
that year were co-partners doing business as Oowdrey & Adams and 
as such co-partners were engaged in the business of selling motor 
fuel for use in this state and of transporting motor fuel into this 
state for sale therein and were thus engaged in the business of 
distributor of motor fuels; that as such distributors said parties 
received in the County of Cook, during s-^id month of JSovember, 1931, 
66,930 gallons of motor fuel, to-witj gasoline th-^t was then and th 
there subject to a tax of three cents per gallon under the statutes 
of this state; th-t said parties collected from the purchasers of 
said motor fuel, on all of said s^^les during S9id month of November, 
three cents per gallon and collected in all the sum of 13,007.90, 
as such tpxes, of which amount the sum of *500 wms thereafter paid 
to the Department of Finance, State of Illinois and there remains 
due to ssid Department of Finance end to the St^te of Illinois, out 
of said collections for the said month of November, the sum of 
$1,507,90, which sum became due on December 30, 1931; thet said 
parties on December 30, 1931, unlawfully, knowingly and willfully 




imik { ^SlOiilddl 10 STATS aKT W 'idiom 
lYTraOi) 2000 ( ^{b&bsȣqmt) ^Yiii^GfOO .2 HlMja 

a OB .A.IOejsi 

• THUOO 3HT '^0 HOIHiqO 
Ir-fliffilTD ari* fli b&teia® ia&m-gbul s KOitl: X^aqqjs ns si aiifT 

xsT lax;? TToi-oM sxid' JbsJ.eXo2v gniTsri to^ l>e;foivnoo fe«.P Y^Xiug bn«o"i: 

*I5Gi «i foaJbfl9iii.3 oj« iGSeX to ifj^d 

tasbaeilnb add- d-.nriif f)©siS!iio ta^mfotbai ^di lo I tauoO 

4 1 "recffflSvoH Juocfj? io no mBsbi\ ,a IjtbwoH ftflo boB x^'^^^^ •'*' iSfnlS 

■Jo iscfinsvoM ^o iJJnoK 9x1* gaiTx/i) nsJlsotsri^f YJ^euoirnitnoo fcns ,1561 

fcfia aoBbA •% Y®'':f>''0'^ SR S8»fliBi/cf -galob Bi&atisq^oo stsw i:.Rax •''Jsrf* 

lod-offl gniXIse lo Besnlax/cf srU ni £193^3x19 ©taw Bi©a*TC£q-oo riojua es 

exdi o^nl Xaxfl lo^om ■gnitioq&astt to bas aJrda eixl* ni &bu aol Xax/i 

"io 8B80laxxcf 9ri* ai feesstaaa awriif qxqh baa at^isdi eLae rol 9tstB 

Belttsq JbiflB aro^adtttBib rioi/a e.e iJsil* jaXai/* io*oiB lo ^otudltiBth 

gXSex jiacTifleToH to iliJnoia £>lfss -gaitub ^aiooO to y^«j^oD erf* at Jbavleoa's 

't f)fl.6 aerit 8»?w Jpri* oalXoees Itfiw-o* ^Xawl: loSote to aaoXXs^ 056,33 

'^^&utf>t& ftrf* iftbai; aoXX^s T©q eia&o Q^tdi to xsJ 5 osf toat^fua aiarf* 

lo sTaersjlOTifrr 9dt aost l>a#oaIXoo eslt^tiRq fcise irdt ;at.?^*8 aid* to 

trtscfrnQvoM to diaom bLfiB -gaizisb aaXsp fcl/sa to XXjs ao tXawt to*om Jbi^a 

tOe,TOO,S:?i to fliifa &Ai lin al batoaXIoo bae «oXXb3 laq ataeo aaicil^ 

fciisq Tcad-tjsQTari* 8<^w 0031 to aujE ed.-f ittuow.& doirfw to ^83X3* doi/s ba 

anieHisT etarf* ftnp aloniXH to ©Isd-S ^aoauall to ^^nsmi^tuBqaa sricf o^ 

■ ifo 4BioiiiXXI to 9tf?*0 erf* o* bite aoasaXI to ^aeai^'XBqaG Jbiaa od- 9ub 

to ffiuB arf* ,^9cfK8ToH to xf^aoai bt&s axf* tot axioljfoaXXoo blKB to 

JblRB d^' rfi^ jXSex ^OS ladjaaooa ao ©iff? smBoaef «u/e xfoJtdw ^OC^fOatX^ 

XXXx/tXXXw ban xXsaJtwoai ^xXXjutwjsXnx; ,X5ex ,0S TecftteoaO ao 8«l*i«q 

failed or refused to pay said sum, contrary to the st^'tute* 

Oount 2 of the indictment makes similar alleg'^tions 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 Oowdrey i Adams, ss distributors of motor fuels sold 
134*314 gallons of motor fuel, to-wit: gasoline, subject to a tax 
of three cents per gallon, which amoxinted to M*036,42, no part 
of which has been paid to the Stnte of Illinois, 

Count 3 of the indictment makes a 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 St^te of Illinois of |4,249.14, which amount they 
refused to pay to the Department of Finance or Sta^te of Illinois, 

Count 4 makes similar charges against said defendants for 
the montli of Febiruary, 193S, alleging that as such distributors they 
sold 68,850 gallons of gasoline on which they collected a total tax 
of 12,989,38, which amount became due March 30, 1932, but which 
the parties have refused to pay, ete« 

Count 5 makes similar charges against said defendants for 
the month of March, 1933, alleging they sold 3,796 gallons of motor 
fuel on which they collected a tax of 1923,88; that said tax became 
due April 30, 1933, but that they have refused to pay,eto^ 

The defendant Howard Adams was not apprehended, but the 
defendant Elmer ^» Oowdrew was arraigned and entered a plea of not 
guilty to the indictment and each count thereof* 

The jury returned a verdict consisting of five paragraphs 
in which they found the defendant guilty in manner and form as 
charged in epch of the five counts of the indictment, consecutively 
and find Oowdrey $1,000,00 as to each of the five counts of the 
indictment, making a total fine of 15,000,00. 

We are met at the outset in this case by a challenge to 
the venue* 

s;^B*g odi \o ftoasail lo ^asai^xeqaa ad^ mo^t ©ensoiX s bjBiJ selj^jwj 

Jbies tX^i^J- ,t9rffflo»»C lo Ataem »tii sxittirJb Ijsiff i#s*IX.)E5 jeiociXXI ll 

Moa bXsi/I rio^om I0 tio^wtfiiifeiA' ili' tiiiELfiiA s ^stfirwoO lo mnil 

X'scl- p Oi? *O9|;d08 4»£riXo«83 iitiw-o* ^Xej;fl loiom 'io aaoIXfig iM8e^5I 

*T:«q on ,g^,8S0iM o* XJSstiwojBB cfoixiw ^aoll&g aeq asffitao s^trij- to 

•sloflliXI "io Qti^^tQ^Ai ot blsq flvscf Md iloldv lo 

1:0 aaoXX^g SSS^Xi^X ^Xoe ai:o^i/cfiT*8ife tjs BsiJ^aq Aii?* frriS JazI* 

fc9*o9XXoo X9di rioirfw flo ,S56X ytsi/fl«4 to (1*«0«. fijt gaiijtfJSi ©ciXoup^ 

XSjrft tmiomr, rioMw t^i.e^S^M-^© »J!©aiXXJ. lo 9dt 9ub xsi b 

♦axoaiXXI to •*^te 10 aonfiflXl lo J-asraitijjsqsa srf* o* y«? o^ i)9axft»tt 

ttol: B;^fl■eM9l9fc i>iJBs ients^^e 8»att.srio iJsXifflie BSii?.^ ^ ^asjoO 

•Z9df BrotuiHrtBtb dowB bjs leriit ^i^^Xls «8£eX ,>jT-ay^;cfs'5 Sofi|J*«OBi 9ilt 

Xf-i- Xfi!«o# s Jb«#©»XXoo X9«i* tioirfw «o aaiXosfi'g I0 eispiXsjj OfiStSd l)Xo« 

'!col' uiitBbaeTi&h btJRS fwil&'gB S9§xsifo x^XXioXa eei^ic cl ;^m/oC 
io;roffi lo e«oXXj8S aft^f^S JbXoa \:«Mi* gaigeXije «SiS.eX ,rio:£JsM to il#xto« •xl* 
Sffifioacf x£<$- JbX^e j^i2xi;r ;8e«£S6t to X|t;f i3 i}a4toQXXoo x^i^^ ^P^<lw no l9ul 
m0&9^x«q o* Ijesjjts'x »vM \8fIJ *6dch j-jucf ,SSe.X 4PS XJ^xqA ©i/t 
9rii tod tfjsi/flsrisTqq* toa us» woeJhA Jixfiwoa iatibaeleb eiil' 

,lo»'j:9xi;f d-iufoo dOBst j^jjus ^aewuJ-oiiijni; a>ri;f o;}- xtltii^ 
exlqanaA^aq »vil lo j^nWeiaxtoo *oiJt>«©v is Jiannx/cfaT!: xx^t; ^^'■'^ 

&.« ffliol fcfl-3 Tsrxiieav al xtliir^ itaBba»l»b. ati* i^nx/o* ^••ri* doixlw ni 

YXavid-t/oasnoo ,Ja3m*oiiaijt exlJ to atowoo evXt ©d* to do*© ax bQ^ijado 

»sLt to ©d-nwoo ©Tit 9dt to flo^© 0^ jt« OOAOpO^it t©^woO Jl^alt bas 

.00.,QOG*St to ©flit Xjb*o* » snX:j£j8i? ,*ii©«<K>iMi 

The indlotiuent after alleging that the said defendant was 
a licensed diatritoutor of motor fuels, charges tfet he had collected 
a certain amount of money, and concludes: "no part of which was at 
any time paid to the Depart m^ent of Finance of the State of Illinois 
or to the said State of Illinois, which sum became due on the 30th 
of April, 1932; that said parties on said 30th day of April, 1933, 
unlawfully, knowingly and willfully failed and refused to make pay- 
ment as aforesaid of said svm of #933,88, or any part thereof, to 
said Department of Finance of the State of Illinois, or to said State 
of Illinois, contrary to the statute." 

Ko proof was offered as to where the money was to have "been 
paid. The indictment charges his failure to pay 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 Oook County 
or Sangamon County* 

In the case of The People v. Allen. 360 111, 36, at page 
43, the court said: 

"It is well settled that in an indictment for embeg7lement the 
venue is properly laid in the county where the accused wss under 
a duty to account. ( People v. uavis, 369 111, 256.) In People 
V. Kopman. 358 111, 479, where the defendant w^s charged with 
embezzling motor fuel tax money, we held that the venue was 
correctly laid in Sangamon county. The statute (Smith* s Stat, 
1933, Chap. 137, sec, 17,) requires the Department of Finsnce 
to have its central office in the capital building, in Springfield, 
we will not take judicial notice th^t branch offices have been 
established, ( People v. ^llen. 353 111. 262,) 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 Alien was under 
a duty to pay the tax money to the Department of Finance in the 
absence of proof that there ^as a branch office of that 
department in Oook County authorized to receive payment." 

Several other points are raised in pleintiff'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, 


*« 8.8W ifoidw ^o txsq 0X1 « ic9&i;i0ijoo fcnjB ,Y®«oiH ^o tmsomB aXMireo b 

,ssei «XiiqA Ift Xisix 4*0B feijsa fio ««i^4q JbMi- ta&i jSseX «I4:iqA to 

o* <i09Tftxl* ^-sfiq -^is to ,S8*CSet to fflwa Jbi-sa lo I>X£;89:co1.b Sij ^raajc 
•d-j3#8 &X138 o-t TO ,eioaXXXI lo ft^jsite •srfi' to aoxuBi|4% tO:, #fl®Bs^fiq»a I>Ij38 

" « **jt/*j5t8 erf* o* xxr.ntaoo ^aioatlLl to 
xisstf Brnti od a«w xo«pffl ^X9d^ .tajt- »b A»x«tt.o lUBir too^q oSS 

;?ii9ijjJt,sQ0C ®dt qt xaq o* «*tfXi«t iX«£ ••gtado 3'x|,9«;roXfoG:Jt »4X tiiJiX^ 

tSioiSllXl to 9t»tB adcf 0* 'SO aiOiaiXXI to aleja a4^ to aowsBtil to 

*rf§iHj ^noffi »d* xloixluf 0* aaosXq toatisilb i>fls os(-sxsq©8 o^i csisia rfoiilw 

Jbi.f?:q ;^Qa csw ^1 leriJ' sfllsforie Y^f-"^ aafor^X tooiq wl^ fcnjs Jfcisq naecf STjed 

,tn."*ffi;ti-sq9G sri* *i?d:^ aeWvoiq e*wJ:js*8 sriT ♦xerijfo «<** no f«/jXq aao #« 

-cfwe atew tooiq 9tt *«flf »®loc,tXiI ,M«Xt;3ii4:'xq.8 ol atf XXbxIb eoasnil to 

YtniroO :looO al i9ri*«xiw ,Jbi.R<j dcf fcXjuocts t««o» ©^-^ starfv «># gs fts+tirn 

#U;taaoO nora.'^ ■ 
851^ in ,«S »XXI cas «xi sj:iA »v ftXqpo^i anIT to ss.eo T!-' .; . 

©rit i'/J fa3 lo't ^nomd-olJbni ns xij; f?-cii bQiti'rs iiaw si JI" 

9Xv?ogH '■"''i (•'-^<^S ,XXI Ca:- t siveo iV aXqQ 9'|) .d-Jti/ooo'^ o;t Y^^-'^ 'fs 

' 'flfi-3F"'£>s>:§T<2iio 8ftw *rt,ei>rr©t®o stiT ^is'dw JTv* ,1X1 825 «ajBgiao:ai •v 

e.sw ©yflsv 'Sfi.t twxiit i5X»tf 9t jX^f^of-i ''^•••'^ •^^'•'■''^ lo^oa s^ilXsssrfs* 

,i^.*?*g B?iitiE2g) ®#ff.t-:!tR flfff mX^fi.aoo floftifiixxat fxi MbX yXJos-tioo 

ftOHBitX'i to :t.>: ..'ST (,TX'*09« «TRX *qBriC' ,"5G'X 

^JbX«J:ts«JtaqB ai ,5;. ■ ai soitlG l.fjiJrreo sil mad oi 

used «v,eri tiis>oi! o ■•.■'^ji.vj .i .i r../ '.,i.ii«-on X*?ioifei;j, ®jfe^ ?oxi iXiw ©F 

soaoecffi oxl;t nl baii (tS3S *XXI JJdS ,nn£i^ .v .gXgo^i) ,*«xfeiXcfs*a9 

TSfrr" -,: '-y-^baQ^Qb ©ilt s'x?^-- --^-'i;.: &tit y-- ^ '■''■'■'"■ ""■'^ "* ■"^•^'^-'''' '""y 

-f 9fl!^e »rft ,&..> ■'-3 fll « : 

Xft.. • .v.... ©nt to ax !v-']!i- :■> fiou^'. .. , - : 

r&bau aRw ,n«XXA 9««riw ftr- , :.■■■ aj: ;. .^to-ja;?) s^i'.': .<:in ^tob x^rf 

tBdi to ftOJttto rioa««Ta f^ «jsw e^s^tf* ^Brti ioo-xq tc 
• ,*fl9fDYS<5 evXeosT o* b^slxodiuf xitwo^ jfooO aX *ix-: 
rioiriw t«lTCf B»tli!rol«Xq fll fctelsi w* i*flio^ laiSd^o Xatavse 

t,mli »lAi tB tBbJtnaeo &i x^.««8«otfl m»^b tor ■'• — 
I.RnXmi'rO Bdt to ;tJB©fliaJb^''i; sri* nsvX;^ fllSTSd enoas©T »if* :eo^ 

«aa8H3V'iH THSMOOUI. .,,feseT»v»'i ttfa-asrf ax t^iircC' 

«HnoHco .LI. .JJAH «*A aassH 




eto« , et al». 



290 I,A, 605 

et R£HS;.RINQ 


This cause comes before us on a petition for a rehearing. 
The cause originally came before ua on an appeal from a decree 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. 

This court in its former opinion inadvertently st^^ted that 
the pleAS of (1) res ad judicata. (3) laches. (3) no;^joinder 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 neoesaary to have all interest- 
ed parties affected by the decree before the court. But, upon again 
reviewing the briefs and abstract before us 776 find that the ^BSaaS^eKg. 
counsel for plaintiffs stated that he had all the parties before the 
court thrt he thought necessary and further stnted to the trial court 
in substance th-t he did not wish to add any additional parties in 
order to obtain the relief he is seeking. 

i ♦:^9fflXi!sr(*'A 


,TflUO0 SKT ... .,; 

♦^niTf-erfOT J8 lol: no^-_.;, : .., ... ...... crijisoo 9a«.f<© airfl 

-Siifc ssTt^ot ■' .ijof''- I.^9ft-qj3 lis flo &u ©trotfflcf 9i!flso ^iX,rn.i .,i>:o ©ax/so erfT 

• »noJtJo8Txii xiJiw ©bubo 6dt 
to lofcfllot^ofl (5) .is»dOfii (S) ,.:;J'ffOxlu;U>.P ee:; (I) to ««i»X^ adj- 

re v-"., •?■;,! ri- ov■^" " ■;TgE8»o®fi w:.. vx j-.w-taifo two 0i ,,88 i»£iflio^aofl lo 

"y ei^ iae ia a g ail^ i 60 ball -. »>- o,.^;-.. io^x^sC- -- ^..-iiccf ad* soiwaiven 

&i£if axd'istf aaijl't^ MiJ-'iXA J>«f«i' ail *«tf^ Jll^»«#8 »tti*«-^9iQ to* i®aa«oo 

.tTuoc X.fil7.;J ®iil# oi Jba*«;;J'8 'csrf^'st;! ftnB ^i:ji>8SS09n ttinuod* a?f *aii* Jiwoo 


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 th^t 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 sjaend their bill. For thst 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 s^'me from the former opinion 
written by this court on November 4, 19S6, 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, 



.fcXt'Ow doiri^jT mroBb y^s ''tcf Jbs#s»'3:^s aq G^^iV^ '-^cv' , ijT.eaesosn 
,Y^09rft ,t jtf.t no ^ft-iXJ? *a.ei>flst9l5 »«ii?t«cr ^bjsas don ©tsv ,|)a•re:^x3:e scf 

o# ©tie©.'- ..■.-. :.^-ob Jl:.ititi»lq »k t9»tfr»q £toiri- .- „„.-,_■... ^.; liJtcT 

s9f.StAq •tt»eB«»®n ":• ' sxtisaitaell) baa rBbalolnoa 1© 

t't©®'X9C - < 'i:5Cffisev©a ao #Uir©o 8i£l;f xti asititw 

to LLlr -- l>al&^aea t» ml i.;':d'au» oi ixtsfyO 

, iajt;. U-aIv. 4!'-4i^W 


BiiouiT 60URT 



(Petitioner) Appellant, 




(H„poMe„t) .PP.U.,. i 29 1. A. 60 5"^ 


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 ^as brought by the plaintiff 
to recover dajaagea 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 & judge and jury and a verdict 
was returned finding the defendant guilty and assessing plaintiff's 
damages at the svim of 15;, 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; th?^t she was proceeding to enter a 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; th-^t after she wes 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. 

" "rnHniirKj 

.?Tau(;D 2JOO0 ( 

5oa ,A.i oes 

.Ti5tJO0 aiiT 

v*;^v-.^... .:■■■■^ ..... :. J. i :.;;,..., :.-...... ...■ ,-...... -.,aqqB fl.s el alri'; 

"ilia-jjlsXq »rf^ Yi^f ^rfgwoTc .;: flOl*o? aril 

46 yXx/L no i-«,si£ii7;i3fi «£f* t<^ £»«^J^9qo i&«a .b9ni?o aXicfOBiotjtr,?. nc x<i ifoxirxta 

erfi- fli B;^osrtJ^8 bmipM fen,?? utoGftrftsi^: lo floi*6»8T»*flJ: ©ri* Tjs«ri ,XS6X 

d-oXi>T9v « bfls Ti«C ^fl »a-- ''^ ••»© ®rfT ,03.80i:riO to Y-io 

,-fTuoo arid- aoi*o« H**n,«.£>n9l6J) «0 .OO^OOOftSS' 'io Hut eil* in ssjajsausfc 
,BXR9qqj8 lli^^fllsXQ #rci/oo 9d* lo tsBio xfoiffw jaoal; «X«I^* w»fl ? Jbs;^fl«ta 
ori* at sd-ftX ,X5GI ^6 y-^^ flo *frf* swoda »on9Jbiv© srfT 

o;tni fesflii/* fens t9«)rr*B eauBfiA no *8p?» *fl9w erie ^JbexoXqas esw siIb stsiIw 
no 9«os Y*»^^-8 J5 TS^flS 0* ^fltitsoooTq 8«« ©rfe *ffl;f {tseid-s nTocfasea 

8,9 .tsriJ ;'iBO *9©T*8 batlOtS&ttSQt B iJTCiSOCf O* 19l>10 ni J-©9T*8 ATOCfTB^a 

03 d'x/ocr.'?. ialQCi a d-.e Jdaate aiocfTBsa o* no druo arf* moat l>9qq8*8 erie 

afotrrts asw aria ,*99t*8 aiaeJbA Attn aol^oseiad-ni ej-l Io Atioa i^«9l: 

woXiax G v^ox\ YBWB *i gnlio?,ff sjgw tri ais sXlrfomod-x/B e ' Josfcnal ©I) ycf 

ni:ocfTs9a ao rfi-i/oe Yentwol; eirf gniwrxid-noo to esoqxf-rn 9fft 10I rfao 

nsffi i9xl;fo ow;f Me i-fljsJbaelsfc sd* :;^owt.l8 s v; orfe r^i'i. ;*93t*s 

•vonft ftltiw Birf bas :tmbRB\9b tedd ; '^Titf-siinslei) o*nl igri JbsqXad 

Ttxe verdict of the jury was for |5,000. The evidence was 
conflicting. There were but four witnesses testifying, - plaintiff, 
defendant s'nd his wife and plaintiff's doctor. The accident 
occurred on July 9, 1931, and suit was not commenced until July 7, 
1933. Instructiona 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 h-sols. seat of the automobile, but that there was a tiny 
whiskey glass on the seat end also a flask which she had to push 
over in order to lie down* 

It is also pointed out that evidence was offered as to 
a 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 pleadings and it may have been that this was one of the 
errors which the trial court wished to correct when he granted a 
new trial* 

In the trial of oases before a jury and where the rulings 
OB. the admission of evidence, instructions to the jury and the 
entire procedure is reviewed by the trial judge on a motion for a 
n«w trial, he, necessarily, is vested with wide discretion in deter- 
mining whether or not justice has been done. The trial jiidge sees 
the witnesses upon the stand and hears them testify and, in most 
crses, he is in a better position to judge ^s to the credibility 
of the different witnesses than is a court of review* 

we agree with coxmsel 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 


« '^.LtniBlq - »3«it^i*e9d- essaan^iw Tirol: itwcf aiew sxa^T »3&ciiifOjEXljrioo 
ftl" '^li/t. Xid'ni; i3©o«©{fii>oo ioa sew *li/8 £>flfi ^iSSX <© xXi;X» no f3©Tta;ooo 

«lMhr. lit itniAXq *«il* jfocl ©if* o? £»»XXso ti aoi*ns;f*B tx/O 

, tiff ni ©fiiofi[ isrrf gniviil) asw tasijflol©!) n»i<w tsri* 1)6*5*6 sniYli^est 

n fe tJ-fl©i)XooB srirf- to easos srl* moi:! 9XXcfoinotir.a 

:eri* S-jbiI* *i/cf ^^XidomoJ-i/B Oil* " iO;'cf ©rt* ao 

rfsu.;; 0.7 hBd ane rfolriir iscXl « oeX^ fcOQ tjeee Sii* an ea^Xg xsieidw 

♦ «!«.':■. .f tab TO «1 19V0 

o* ss Jbsj'xsl'io a.9w »on©Jbiv9 *px1J- Jxfo b&^ai . M 

n*iw *i39JbJtoo^ 9ri* 1:o s«inav» e^i* l^;i*nl£Xq ri-txY .d;:xi n<jx*.aeT9vnoo js 
,9ffi00 *on fcifi Sri JsxfJ *ircf ,b9XX^o aB9d :^trM 5o*oo£> ? o* Jb-rssst 
sx;seX tfl/^ o* in»Btti^ bjbw aoasMva airi* ©▼•XX»cf ion ob 8?; 
9ri* to 9«o sB^¥ ai(.{# *s^# nsscf 9v.eri xs® *Jt ^n« asflJtbf-sXq Qti^ ycT 9£)j81b 

•Xfiix* wsfl 
e^fljtXx/'r ©ri* drisrfw bas ^lu^ & siotacf s»8so lo Xpitt arid- nl 

oil;f bns \tiJt, &dt o# »i3oi*Oiyt*8««i ^n^n^tir tzBtmbs B(i& ao 

M rot aoltom ,e ao •B**'t Xi?i' cwJbsooiq s^i^n© 

s«®8 »s^£f^. * ofc nsscf * -r 8>f)i:it?ii)i, isriJaxfor ignlniia 

*oofB ni »bK; .1 iB9rf.t «Ti5»if fcflB fcustfa ad* aoqa teeesaiiw ©if* 

Y*i:Xicflfo»"KO axfrt^ noJ:*i8oq rcs**9d f «i : ^ >8j60 

,wf»i:' •■:f[* e9eB9J3*i^ *0»iic«tti^ ®ri* lo 

#filf* «siTaicf *fl.BXX»qqjs tilirffliiaXti a^el Xsam/oo ii*itw sots'? '^ 

XbIt* wftfl i? 8rti*aBTs «i *i;joo I«l:t* 9rf* x6 Jb«8io<i9x« £roi*aaoeX6 »rl* 

riox/B to ©8U/cf.B fc»fltl.fiXo /> lot 9aso laqoiq js ill ireivsT: o* tosldv «X 


In the ease of Wagner v. Ohioaj^^o Motor Ooaoh Oo. , 388 111* 

App, 403, Mr, Justloe O'Oonnor speaking for the court, said: 

"In Villsg:e of LaGrange v, Olark, 378 111, App. S69, 
where an appeal wbs allowed from an order of the oirouit 
court awarding b new trisl, another division of this court 
quoted with approval from 4 Oorpus Juris, see, 3813, as 
follows (p, 285): *It ia generally held that motions for a 
new trial are addressed to the discretion of the trial court 
and are not reviewa.ble unless the record shows a olesy ahuse 
Of such discretion, especially where such motions were baaed 
on questions of ffot 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 
exercisii%: 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 refusing new trials, and the appellate court will interfere 
more reluctantly where the new trial ia granted than where it 
is denied, since in such cases the rights of the parties are 

not finally settled as they are where the new trial is refuBedt 

* * *n 

From a review of the entire record and in view of the 
discretion which is lodged in the trial Judge in granting or in 
refusing motions for a new trial, we cannot say that there was suoh 
an abuse of discretion as would justify a reversal of the ordeir 
entered in this ca,3e granting a new trial* 

For the reasons herein given the order of the Circuit Court 
is affirmed* 



felXI 88S I ,oO, ripJ6oO toJ'oM o>^f?Pifip ,v TCftg ;: ;^?; "i© 9b«o »ri* ixl 

,«SC ,qqA .XII 3Tr 
as ,SX8S , 


oo rioidw 

;■-■;■■:'"' ^^,-...., ... .-;■:.,■;....•, ^.iki' SR^.r'" 

F'"^ aoiiom xJowa ^Tariw xXi - 

.-t ::j ignlitni'J'ics R.t i-ujoo l&ixi art* iiswoIXs ai Qbutit&l i^tsat-^ 
stssl-rrftiVfi XXi?; 4"£;;o© ^ifi^Llmion 9sii ban ^^iBiit ^&a ■^idts'i&i at 

OTs aai^f^jBq 8dJ lo is.tdsiT: arid- easiso iioxw ai souie ^fcaXnal- ai 

fil TO •gni&aaxs al 9gt>ul Xaii* 9ti& til be^bol ai ifoirfw aoii&roslb 

,gu&7i0c •&(, «4^M cn$A aaasui 





Appellants. ) ^ 

By a complaint filed in tti© Circuit Court of Cook County, 
as amended, it is alleged, inter alia. th=^t one Peter Herdien died 
on September 5th, 1939, leaving a last will ^nd testament; that 
tjhe will was duly probated, and that by its terms, certain real 
estate was devised and bequeathed to Elmer Forrest Herdien and 
Jennie U. Sodinson, 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 that upon her death, 
the property devised should be divided in equal portions, share 
and share alike, between his three children, 'Salter L. Herdien, 
Blmep Forrest Herdien and Jennie M. Bodinson, It is further alleged 
that the testator in hie lifetime and on April 14th, 1927, together 
with his wife, Martha, executed a deed conveying the real estate in 
question to Klmer Forrest Herdien, and that such deed was duly 
delivered and afterwards recorded in the Office of Recorder of 
Deeds of Cook County, Illinois; thst simultaneously with the 
execution and delivery of the deed, Elmer Forrest Herdien executed 
a declaration of trust of the ssme date as the deed referred to, 
by whioh 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 Xalter Lawrence Herdien and his heirs, and 
the remaining one half for himself," and that an instrument indica- 
ting such fact was on the d^te of the deed signed by Slmer Forrest 


.YXi5!U00 303Q ,, , >.ii<i£H lEi^ -iJa 



li&9t Sil^Srm'O <,ex8T«i;f ^ "at^tfChc^; 'siXt/' :. ail* 

gnlwoIlQ^ flfjsiifflo liil SBisTi ni bl9ci «a ot ^noeniJboE ,M aiiiiist 

Ito doom OS 79V0 t^ Mj:K>if« ««»^«i/'r^ ft£r;t ;fjsii^ ctsTit :e9eoqiirg 

izoqqus bae soafun^talsa 9dt tt©l vcse«909A »4 ttigtm @^ emooai •rf* 

STiMe ,s«oJ:#toq isirp* ai bBbtrtb »cf Mi/oxIb l>9elT»i> -srtireqOTtq »rf* 

'L&ciiagoi tTSei <ff*J^X litqA no btiB «uait»*iiX bXjS nl iot&ta9t •Hi^snif 

ai 9cfB*89 Isei: tui^.^aixurnoo b^9b e fea#ii08X» ^ari^isM ,9liw aid iJ*lir 

yX«b 8.eT? b99b rfous *sdJ bns ^nsiMsH te^ixo'^ *e«bIX 0* aoiJesup 

lo asfciooeii lo •«il1;0 »xf# ni fiafi-toaair eMjcwtsS'l:?? Due fcstavlXftfc 

fc8*w09x9 fl»ii>T*»H test'ro'H leusXa ,£«»9JEj »riJ ^o xi^^^iXef) bas noltuo9XB 

^oi b9%T.9t9r b99b Qiit 6s 9#J5£> 9«jsa 9tii to iBUtf lo aoliB'x&lo9b » 

Last srid^ lo QBtemi 9cii 9tf o* llB&mtd feasJbtiwoflafOA ari rfoXriw y^ 

&i,?!E Ito \d-Xirp9 ad* lo llail ©no" JbXsri srf i^ti^ ba.r- ^bsxsvnoo 9*s;f89 

.bfi'=' tSiXari 8irf ^ns n9ll)T9H aonoTwsJ latley rot tsur& at xtrBgorq 

"BOlbai tafomriBat an *scf* bae "ttXaaailrf 10 1; IXeri sno grjiniJSitiST aif* 

iBBirot tsraXa x^f l)»rtgie JbaaJb sil* lo ajTisfc sri* no asw *ob1: ifoi/e snl* 

Herdlen and his wife, and th-it the latter instrument w-^s duly 
acknowledged and recorded in the Office of Recorder of Deeds of 
Oook County, Illinois. The prayer of the bill is that the court 
decree that the estate be divided in sooordanoe with the terms of 
a trust created "cither by virtue of a testamentary trust, or by 
virtu* of the trust ore^ted by the convey ?!noe hereinbefore referred 
to". Etpon the ooaaplaint and answers of the parties in interest, 
the matter was referred to a Master in Ohancery, who heard testimony 
and made a report. Upon a 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 that all the pertinent facts involved 
In this proceeding are noted by the court in its finding of fact 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 5th, 1939, Peter Herdien 
died, leaving a last will and testament dated June 6th, 1921, to 
which there were three codicils, one dated January 5th, 1933, one 
dated February 11th, 1934, and one dated July 13th, 1929, and that 
the will was probated on October 38th, 1989; that by this will, after 
providing for the payment of debts and fiineral expenses, Peter Herdien 
devised and bequeathed all his real and personal property to Klraer 
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 wife 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, v^alter L. Herdien and Slmer Forrest Herdien, and 
his dau^ter, Jennie M, Bodinsoti, and that as soon as convenient 

Xlifb Tsm *«»8urT*aai: Bih #.srii btt& ,»ltw Bill luui avtinsU 
^o afc»a>G to t»ftToo«f' 'to softio »ri* ni' lj«f>TO09^ baa bvgb^lvoaiOB 

'■■■' X(fw^'' tttMt i;t*tam&iit^t a to 9u&rtv ijd xBdite" JbsJsBio JewT* s 

^^esrrsd-ai ai BOisrrcjsq «is'# "io sisweae Jbiij" tai«Xq«soo »<[# floqU ."o* 

eaoi*q-90x© aeqw t^ii/o© sfiT^T &i@t94 ^01x^9^ s a»qti ».tH0q9'i b 9bftm Ima 

iesqqc as ei 9i:' ."id 9fl'* lo 'i£3'?RT«f ^lii ■gni^astTg btL^ ttroq^n 

®tf* «vi:^ ftfr ti oeoquaq t^»ir» «n«e XXIw il ^9X9(1 b9t9tii9 99r99& «/S* 

fl®i.b:tnE ^s*9*5 ,esex ,dte %94is.&fq9^ tm *»rif :«w«XIot $« ^-^XXsltastecfue 
of ,XS«X ,il*8 ©aifli .l»#a£) *«»is®*8«* Jbas XXlw ^e^X « gciveaX 4&«XI> 

*sd* bUR tKSeX ,ri#SX ^fXi/l. i)s#sb aa© hm ^^sex ^riJXX t««w^^®'« fi©*Al) 

lenJ! ,XXiw Btdi yd ifsrfit ;eseX iO*8S T»d©*oO co ^ft^FdoTq a«w XXXw «rf* 

fl©Jt£/isH late'i jeftBfisqxs Xfirrsaal bm 8*<f«& lo JaoiSsY^oq *cE* "tol gniUXvotq 

^•«ia o* Y**i®<70Tq Xfifloeteq fcfl« Xj*©* ©Xj^ XX« b9d&&9ap9(i Ma iaaivftf) 

*«rfT lewoXXolc 9» *«;:i:* «i flo^iflX&oS *M ©Xnast has a9Xbi9U tB»%%o'i 

«809ai ©•j:i*H« ©ii* ,fl»il>l9H Ari^tcaii *®li»' elri lo diei^allX ©xl* gnlrri/fc 

tcf feXt'0/i8 «*B©i;p9i JrijiiB ©riB 8» itOifW on X9 ^9^at»9 issj-xt 9dt to 

©rft at bobtvotq a« ,«*n«aiXXfi*8«X a| ©liw eiri o* ©©i-eju^* ©jif* \d biaq 

©ii*n9 ftri* ,fl©lJDir©H r^t^'i lo ©llw ©xfi lo Aineb 9sit aoqu ^edi jXXXw 

9%»ti9 bm »T«<fe ^ai3oX*aoii XBtrp© al b9tu<$tri9tb ^ blueda 9^»i99 t&ini 

fcfl« ,o©XM8H *8©«©1 «©i!XS J&«i! xi©ifci©H #a X9tlni} ,aa08 aid «* «®3l|X« 

*jtX9ln©vnoo ©b noos ©a tsd^ bass ^fio^'? H-'oif ,'m sxnasu ,T»*rfj[.fRf; six-l 


after the death of the decedent • a wife, the trviatee should 
distribute the trust eatete then in their hR.nda, and assign, trans- 
fer and convey one third thereof to each of his said children; that 
in case of the death of any of his children "before the teraiination 
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 ohildj 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- 
vivors of his children, the issue of any deceased child, however, 
always taking the deceased parent'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 shoxild pay 
all the necessary ooats 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 h, Herdien, Jr., xmtil 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, 
Jr., 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, //alter h* Herdien, and after his 
grandson, nalter h^ Herdien, Jr., should attain the age of twenty 
five years, the trust should turn over the rest and residue of the 
trust estate to his son, fialter L, Herdien, Jr«, to have and to 
hold the same in fee simple absolute forever; that on January 35th, 
1934, the Probate Court of Cook Oounty approved the report of Jennie 
M, Bodinson and Slmer Forrest Herdien, as executors of the last will 


ffloi*-6fli«i»* i»rt* vcolacf a^rblXfio aid to ■v;«j5 to si:ts»b ©ritf- lo s«ao ni 

lo 49M<S^ ^^ to .fm^.. m *»^t 0UMn t»aB909b Apub tq M/eei »di )9|; 
»dS floiriff jaoliJ'toq srt:^ a»ri* «aix/aei Jwoii^jtw a9xl>Xlrio alri to x«* 
-twe Si) i«(V4v««e Sii^d^ oi OS JijXiVO«i« i|M«* •▼«Jtf Mx/ow Mlxfo fieaseosi) 
,tavewo4 «AXJLrfo Jbssjsaoaf* x«JS to •*reei »d# ,is9tMlrio till to »«oviv 
Tsq *oa fiw« 99qrl$s i9q ^»%a&9 e'#fl©ieq l3»8,eso»Jb ^Ai ■^tisi B%&vl£ 
-©tq inabsoafc ari* 4XXIW »jtf* to XioXboo hnooQts <bdt \€ i-o.dt ;B*iq;j8p 

ffl©i;t i-jBri^ fcflis ,?3jja* .«rf* to as8a»q;i:;9 J^ •*»©© •^B^Reosn 9rf# XIjb 

YJ5q 9ftX;^ o# mdi sioTt tXx/©4« oe*8in* «il* ».»ffiooni 94$ 

OTJtt ^#ad«<f lo fi^& »di 49««? I^XxioKa 9d Ittau ^,«'& |«ft|l>i9][i^^ tafXi^f 
ni t^^^aiTas t&ssi 9idi mox't anooxTX tan 9&i Bnsf^ ^t t&dt ^jb ^axsa^ 

aif^ tat #fitio4tti;» «£<(# 9i«» AGi &Xi/ciiB t^fi^tmni s>^u? to aoX^tiqat tiL^ 

'"'■■■«■ ■ ■ ' ' ' i •■' '■.■■■'-<■-}■ 

tCiftifcTsH .J la^tXaW enoeisfl^'ig aid to a^^tX«w has foa^astatim ^txoqqst9 

ot amiit JBO'st fcXxfOifa 9»*B«fiif ari- <, b«s asid* jfi^diT |»i^. 

;fl9i£»^;^ tJt ift^XjiW ,xxo8 elri o# 9Booai swisi^U 9£[^ yavo xnq 9«X* 

,-9^ i9#tA ba» ,K»ii>ssH wJ xsjTXs.. ,no? aid to 4*«9fc 9ri!f ao^x/ *«4* 

Xt««w* to 9^^? 9ili <ti«t;f£ &Xtf«d« t*'^ l,a»ii>i9|I iy.I^9it|«w ,no8fc««T):s 

erfi^ to ©iftXesi ba'^ *'■"' *rft lavo utxiJ bLuoAt ttujt •dt j»9t«ex 9vXt 

Q* baa 9Y&d 0* ,.i- 4-itJlfcxfH .»X la^XaA ,«<=•« sif^ o* QtataB t^urt 

,<J*3S v^BJi/n.'?!. ao rad* j%9V9*tot stJtrX^a^j! aXcjaii; i 90*8 Bdtt blQd 

aXnnel to jToqsi ©riJ fcavoiqq* jtmioX) iooO to JtuoO o^stfoxl 9dt ,*8eX 

Xli^ rfRsI Silt lo fe-roi^juo^xs e.'? ^nsifetaH t89T'xo'? t9«XS fcus noeniioa ♦« 


and testament of Peter Herdien, ?!nd 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« Bodinaon and £laer Forrest Herdien, as trustees, 
pursuant to the last will and testament of Peter Herdien; that 
Martha Herdien, the wife of the decedent, died on September 23rd, 
1931, and that it thereupon beoaaae the duty of the trustees to 
divide and distribute the trust estate; that in Januaiy, 1932, Jennie 
M, Bodinaon and Elmer Forrest Herdien, -rg such trustees, executed a 
declaration providing for the division of the trust property, and 
that by such instruaient, the real estate in controversy here was 
distributed between the defendants, Jennie M. ^odinson and ^ijaer 
Forrest Herdien in the proportion of one fourth interest to 
Jennie 11. Bodinaon and three foxirth interest to illmer i^orrest Herdien, 
The court also found that on April 14th, 1937, Peter Herdien and 
Martha Herdien, his vlfe, executed, acknowledged and delivered to 
the defendant, Elmer Forrest Herdien, a warranty deed to the 
premises in controversy, ^hich deed was recorded in the Office of 
Recorder of £>eeds of Cook County on April 14th, 1937; that on April 
14th, 1937, iClmer 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, 1938, and which 
document was recorded in the Office of Recorder of Deeds of Cook 
County, Illinois, on May 17th, 1938. This document is in words 
and figures as follows: 

"Agreement between S. F, Herdien and Mr. A Mrs. Herdien. 

In and for the consideration of the transfer this day 
to Elmer Forrest Herdien of the City of >iats©ka. County of 
Iroquois and State of Illinois of the following described 
property, to-»lt: 

Lot twenty-three (23) and the Vest twenty three (1,33) 
feet of Lot twenty four (34) in Block one (1), except four 

®ff:f o* tsvo £i®nT! ,, . aiJb ^ao itt^ttBlaimbs to 

jferSS' T©rf«»*q9e ao fcsif) ^Jxx&fesosb 9dt to dllw 9/1 J ^.aaiJbrtaH Asitxsti 

<iS 9»si#«inr# M^ to ^iub •ri# •anBOdd floqir«T©ri* ^I ^edt J&xis ^XiSei 

9inn«I, ,^Sei ^x^i^aoBl, at iMi idd^s^fes ;rein* »d* eitweriTJal* Ma aljlvll) 

£ b9ttt9»x^ ,«99jBin t ^•t^®^'^ iteeTTO"? tftaiia baa noeatboB ,M 

IjBs jY^t^crortq *3i;- '•■li^i tot ^ibl-vorq aol#etfiI©«J) 

tstQvoxiaoG (il Qisi^va Lk-ijx 9tlt ,#n»«urs*8ni Aotn xtf tjBri* 

, ,-..:sr je^Ai.i'i tSffiXS o# Je9T©:fni: |*ti/o1: ei»ittf* baB aoBntbo^ »U Binn^l, 

Mfi a^Jtb-fnU tSitO*! «VSei ,fi***J: litqA fio '*M* fcajLTO't osIiJ tftxjoo Qdt 

t>if hi?^T9vlL^b bttR &rafe9lwoit2f©i? 4l>«*jLf09x« ,9tlw aid ^aalJbtsH jsjcftraM 

«d* o* !)»»*» 'i{*««^*':'5w i! ^ftftibrrdH JeaTitoH !r»«Xa e*fljBi>«©t»fc erf* 

to »otttO 9ri* fli fo«irt009T sm fcssfo n'oixl;T »i!:8t9voiJ«o« at tealee^q 

li-cql fro 3 t^d ;rsex »if#*I XltCfA no Y^Of^oO afooO to obndQ 1:o lOJbicoosfJ 

*swt b9»b «f!J nl »©#flj»ts »rfi tftslhraH tBSXto'l rtamXS «TSex ,xiJ^X 

!^ b9iuo&x9 ,«"tiw 8irf ,fl©libite?^ J aaI»H ritxvr i^rid-sgo* 4o;t b^rtidtot 

Jbe^fceXwoni'oj? «*«rf »v«rf «ll^ 1b»ihc«C«»^ si doirfw tsi/t^T lo aoltax»lt9b 

rfoiifW i>n9 ,8SeX jri*W d&rsM to ©s-afo TSlmcx oiX<fx;q r^^ioa ,e s«led 

tjbiow nl si ^amtio: ,if*¥X x«M «o i»lofliXiI ,Y*m/oO 

lawoXXot e,P esTus-fi ^'^^jr 

bediroB&b ^atvoil*>t !»o>-5- lo eiofllXil Ic 

: 7 x ?:?-::^ .' ^Y'^-'^- >-'"'^i 
(££.«:) ©eTtirf X^^^^J =* hiw (BE)9enri*-^in9^;tjroJ 

':ci/o^ Jqsoxa ,(X) snc ' '-^) Tt'ot X*'- ■ " ^^ *®®^ 

and tvirenty eight one himdredtlia (4,28) acres in the North 
part of said Block one (l) lying ©est of Jreen Bay Road, now 
Clark Street) in the Oa,nal Trustee's Subdivision of the East 
half (E 1/3) of Section twenty nine (39), Township forty. (40) 
Horth, aange fourteen (14) East of the Third (3rd) Principal 
Meridian in Oook '^ounty, Illinois, 

Elmer Forrest Herdien and Helen H, Herdien, hia wife, 
hereby and herewith enter into an agreement with the Grantor, 
Peter Herdien and Martha Herdien, his wife, of the Oity of 
Chicago, County of Oook and St-^te of Illinois, whereby the 
grantor and hia wife fehall have entire control of the income 
from said property over ?nd pbove the taxes ?nd legitimate 
upkeep. Elaier Forrest Herdien and Helen H. Herdien, his wife, 
further agrees that one half (1/3) of the equity of ssid property 
shall be held in trust for Walter Lawrence Herdien, or hia heirs, 
as per the Last Will and Testament of Peter iierdien, and further- 
more that they will not sell or incumber said property during 
the lifetime of Peter Herdien or of Msrtha Herdien except with 
their express permission or request* 

Slmer 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 to the braJioh 
of the family from which it oame should Elmer Forrest Herdien 
precede his wife and son to the grave, and his son ^ere to be 
without progeny, or wife* 

Dated 'it Chicago, Oook County, Illinois, this 14th day 
of April, 1927 « 

Elmer Forrest Herdien (Seal) 
Helen H, Herdien (Seal) 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Hotary Public, in 
aad for the above state and Ooujaty this 14th day of March, 1988, 

Ralph G, Ingersoll, 
(Notarial Seal) Notary Public*" 

Thereafter, Elmer Forrest Herdien and Helan H. Herdien, his wife, 

executed and acknowledged under date of iiovember lat, J938, another 

declaration of trust, which was recorded in the Office of Recorder 

of Deedsof Oook Oounty, Illinois, on November 1st, 1938, which is 

as follows: 

"This Indenture '.Vitnesseth, That the Grantors, i'lmer 
Forrest Herdien and Helen Harriet Herdien, his wife, of the 
Oity of Watseka, in the County of Iroouois and State of Illinois, 
for and in consideration of the sum of Ten (|10,00) Collars in 
hand paid, convey and warrant to Elmer Forrest Herdien and Jennie 
M. Bodinson, as Trustees, the following described oroperty, towit* 

Lot Twenty three (33) and the West twenty three (w.3S) 
feet of Lot twenty four (34) in Block three (2), in Behrke and 
BrauokKiann's Subdivision of Out lot or Block one (l), (except 

won tbjiso'- V ' ' ixl (i) 

*«Ra^ M'-t !•& 1 urrT Xjsn- 

,®1-.iw slid ^.iy^ib^-9B mH '■ 
(TO ;{■«,«•»■<} yc'.t ff:?-.j:w Cj-fiiS>w?- 

©r'? . ;r ■ / ,,; • .vr.":.,, ■ ^ 

^■srx^d ©it" 'xo ^r:. Tol :!teuiJ ai blUii ad I^, , - 

J!;/: .'i '„i^ iias oOH Xliw ifoifi- (^t:'- ? ••.•..:.. 

rf;:?/ .' to r/ai:l>T»>- ■!©;*»'? to ©wid-sl i.: Gu;t 

Ic -.' • ■'. ■- , ■■':■■■■ 

.V.SfcX tXiiqA to 

(X-=53) cjitf-- 

lefiTOoaJT lo Qoi";":" --r'.t ni l>afoto^?'r r - r'oi /* ^j^fiifl* to hoXJbibXosI) 

jewoXIo'S: bs 

»rf* I0 ,9^Xw Birf ,xr5xii'&ii *©jtii«H fl»XeH Mfl a«iJbrt9H jfeSTToi 

,aioniXiI lo »d^r,te bnn RioirpoiX lo -^i^HuoO sri* nl ,B:rf8e*.Rv; lo yJ'iO 

flX ttijiXXaa (rvv,""'- ..^T to wx;8 »Jf* T '' - ' -'. "■ nX bti'-^ roJ 

DlncsXr l)aK nsil»*:s o'"* temXA ot in • ,.bXBq i: -; : 

fcni? oiirfsu Hi ,v'.; •i^'^-rnj a;uxc., xii (^S) luoJ. vJavs*,. w .v.,^ lo *©«t 

four and twenty eight one hundredths (4,28) acres in the North 
part of said Block one (1) lying vest of Green Bay Road, noi? 
Ol!?rk Street) in the Oanal Trtistee's subdivision of the last 
half (£,1/3) of Section twenty nine (39) Toimship Forty (40) 
north, Rang« fourteen (14) East of the Third (3rd) Principal 
Meridian in Cook County, 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 ?(fill of JPeter Herdien, by and in whioh said Peter 
Herdien willed said property in trust to said Elmer Forrest 
Herdien and Jennie ^, Bodinson* 

In Witness V/hcreof, the Grantors aforesaid have hereunto 
set their hands and seals this 1st day of November, 1928* 

Elmer Forrest Herdien (Seal) 
Helen Harriet Herdien (Seal) 

State of Illinois 
Oounty of Cook 

I hereby certify that llmer 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, appeared before me this day in person and acknow- 
ledged that they signed, sealed and delivered the said instru- 
ment as their free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes 
therein set forth, including the release ?ind wslver of the 
right of homestead. 

Given under my hand and notarial seal this 1st day of 
November, A, D, 19S8» 

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 Msrtha 

Herdien to Slmer Forrest Herdien and the declsration of trust, that 

the entire transaction was in prasenti. and not one to take effect 

in the future; that 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, acoampanied 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 declaration of 

trust in that it contains all the evidence necessary to create a 

trust; that the 8ub;3ect matter of the trust is clearly and 

^froM. Mt nl »9%&s iSl&t^} jsdibBxkarJrl 9ao W:^i» xiamt mJi ti«rol 

■serf- •^1/'^ t'.' 

:^aoO to x&asJoO 

iTBton fen,?? 

tf^osll© si.i8* o* •00 ion M*? .i»gj»eB'£a ly. «mir aoi^'O^eaRi* p'xl^aa ari* 

xieiplqisoQ bAeiBAq ,ad^rrsksuin:#acX ttuoii^r 9tii at bz-Qixo9i9b baa aoits^ao 

Q^tn&r^ ptii Bi b9tB9v buM b^»b ^t«a7.««w «iri* nl Btoiasx^ Bdt laoTl 

"io b99b »&t tMdt jstj'/icTjj »dt at b99t arf.t lo x;TC8viXsl> ®d* noqo 

:r.B9&909a ©oaai>.r CX-^ eni^^xioo *i lail* xsi *'ain:d 


definitely indentified, and the correct leggl description of the 

property is set forth, that the beneficisiriea of the trust are 

designated in the proportion which e?ch shall take, and fiirther, 

that the trustee is clearly de3ign?ted in th^t Klmer Forrest Herdien/ 

Helen H. Herdien, hia wife, deolsred themselves to he trustees. The 

court further found thst there w-s no evidence offered or received 

which tended to show thst the plaintiffs, or either of them, had any 

knowledge of, or oonsented to the execution snd delivery of the 

warranty deed hereinbefore set forth from Peter Herdien and Martha 

Herdien to Elaaer Forrest Herdien. 

The only question for determination here is whether the 
document called "Agreement between E, F. Herdien and Mr, and Mrs* 
Herdien", is vrlid, and whether this doouaient constituted a trust, 
by the terms of which one half of the title in the property involved 
was to be held by the trustee, Elmer Forrest Herdien, for the benefit 
of Walter Herdien. As already suggested, the trial oourt held that 
it did create such a trust, and for the purposes therein st?ted. 

In Fox V, Fox. 350 111, 384, the Supreme Court s?!id: 

"No particular form of words is necessary to create a 
tr\i8t when the writing makes clear the existence of a trust, 
( Orr v» Y-t8s. 309 111. 332,) 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, P'^rol evidence 
is admitted to make clear such details, 'If the writing makes 
clear the existence of a trust the terms may be supplied aliunde . '» 

^^ '^etsler v. Sprague. 334 111, 461, the Supreme Oourt 


"It W3S not necessary that the trust should be declared 
by the defendant in any particular form or thst a 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 therefroml"' 

In Marie Methodist Episcopal Ohuroh v. Trinity Methodist 

gpiaoopal Ohurohy 353 111, 31, we find the following: 

"A trust may be declared by n grantor in °. will or deed 
by which land is conveyed or devised, or in a separate instrument. 


^XtJiij^i iiiSvi-. t ,i,«j»e xftj.'?® rfolrfw aoiixwCiO'i'. .. i/s J. -itt^i as* 


9rii: *«9ST5...u-ry ;:-j cJ i" Tj^is-sa sf T t)9TJSX09f5 ,9'ii'r !Vj.n .r-iaiMsH .H a»l9H 

£)9via©9T: 10 hfninlte »oa«btr9 on 8«;^ «T9d* d-.>?rf# bfljjol tsrfJxyl: ihrwoo 

Xtts bsd ^mdt to isrftjt* 10 ,«itl#nJtf5Xq •/fd' iffrrfJ woifs c* beba^t rfolrfw 

«rf.t to -^r^rilBb bap aoi&fjosx^ ^t oS b@ict9snoo to ,T:o t-gb^lmoai 

9a>t TSfftT?.'!;?? ei 8'x»rf auit.*=Ki:aTfT^*«ft tot ««il#a«x;p , ■ i^ 

bsTloTffi -^iJ-XJWfortci 6r.i .. .. ; - - ^ ,:, r ■ rlw lio eKTeiJ 9rtt ^cf 

,b6ia&9 nt9r'»li 89«oQr'S£rtj erf* tot t>«B tJgx/i^ s rfoxre &;}'.'59to bi£) iti 

.fr ■ ■'iatJ.6b « 88;t^:t« Jfi tl (iS££ .X.i UCC ^£ " . ' 

q;; -t tn^a!»l9 vTSvs tod^ vTCBcasosn ;)'orit si ^i 

10 08 9d Jftyai ifz ';< 

Y:i?in effinaJ ©rid- ^eyU j? to »0fl9J«ix«i silJ i5»Xo 


sibax-'TOOiim 4 ni fcnyo ;^ >^wcr <i-8uii" 

;f0»{icfo &ji* t'S^c-Jtvotq f^atuj^jaii. XafiHolAi -aoi. suJ 'lo e-^nttiTv to 

taniwoXXol 9ri* fcni^ ew ,XS «XXI SSS ,rfOTVriO Xscfooeigj 

b«»fc TO XXiw « III io*nATs i-- X<J bexf-Xoefc atf tBJ« *«wt* A" 
.t^asmin^eni o^rsijstrse .« «i 10 ^bsalvel) -co fis^tSTnoo ex bni;! ifolriw ^a 

and a grantee to whom land is conveyed niay declare thet he 
holds it la trust," 

See also Pomeroy's Eq. Jur. sec, 1007; Myers v» Myers. 167 111, 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 W88 expressed in the deed, and none declared by the grantee. 
The deed, however, provided that tlie grantee should hold the estate 
a,nd the title to the property either in Ipw 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 should survive her, for and during 
the period of his natural life, remainder over to the children of 
t^e parties to the agreement," A decree was entered in the separate 
fflaintenanoe suit, which ordered that 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 as to whether the 

origiaaX absolute deed to the third party created a trust, and the 
court held that: 

-slU iJjftf (iol&trib eri* 59v«; asci* Y«t9"rsTC?£!Eoo & fins 4Bi»ld'Xwojt11i;J& 

9*«*89 ©<5# feXotf hlifoA» 99tasT^ 9Sii fp-di b»blro%q ,adYsw«£[ ^b99b tai 

«! ,<j:s*tf*©ti-9<if .«nsieBB han BtJkmd ntd toe^caiss ©if? 1:© a&u icsqorq 

ertlw 9df t^ ^ifsiftitcf #Xj£f8 dOfl^fi»*aij:5£: ©'qse n &i &8ic©d-«9 e^-iif 9<»«ie9i) 

aoltuGQx^ ^M 'to mtiit «*i* $s sfiiMsu &?« rtoidw ,ftastf«tfri ©riif #8fli«^ 

9^'i:w srl^ iT^if^r beblvoxq ia9m9TS^ b^aotttt^ssi tB»l attVS mb»9fi> 6dt l9 

~K©tfll.s» ■S'-Si'>^m9s x&si %o1 ev.m ^^tt&qorq ^aifJo ot noiiJtbbs ai ^bluodB 

*a0o«o foljssp »tfH^ ,&tii t9ii lo floi*sTior3K«& sm[s»' *« bus ,»lxl X4»"£u;fjsrt xeri 

gnlT;wl> bas tot ,"S«fl «viT«a8 fcXcro^fi »d 11 ,xo#^Jxaia s;!^ o^ #s»V9!t JbXx/orie 

lo fiSTrMi '-©isftiiiMHSi; ,»liX SAruism alrf to Jboltsq ed* 

9cr MxrorfB nol#e«i/p at S^m^i 9dt t»d9 bersiyto daidv ,*J:ir8 soiMfleJitlSffi 

f'tii- 3p:t ,^titcx> adf to «»fcT<& T©d*rtwt »rf* Xl*i«f asltf'rr.eq ed* x<^ .t>X»ri 

Litnu ii f»©lq[jjooo JbfiB bftyLoval i>nJ?X lo *ost* 9ri;f to nolsaeasoq aCoo* 

8lif 8« *1 bdew isne *1 to floieeaaaocr icoJ fiascfftffri add' fl»dw ^AtB9b iftA 

• Id to ni/sd-Tdo o^ tt^ouBXH'tnott ni«*i»o sbBtii »d ,TO#t«»T»dT «iffwe 

add' ic»#tA ,flolt«»up ai tojrrt •ri# ?-o ffcisssrsoq t<3oi odw ,aeTbXido 

*!»« *if§«ottf aatbXido i»ri*o «d. . ^ .,?!iif8i/d 9.<f* to At&Bb 

»At oS b»9b iKaL^txQ *dJ ni ^sJaex^j swfif Jbca ■69*a; tenisga 

ei(# •ssd^ad* o* as 98«t» noiJeafirp »dT ,flol#ltrtBq «©t ,x*^sq bxld* 

eri* iifl« ^Huri r .b»*j3srK0 l*ieQ Midif ad* o» b9%b «#ifX©8€fs J«^lg^«flc ■ 

Uadd- JbXsri triroo 

"By the absolute deed made to '/sike for his sole use, 
Wike had the sole power to declare the express trust, if any 
there were, and this power remained unaffected toy the auhscquent 
voluntery conveyances made by Myers to apoeilants*'' 

We are of the opinion that, taking into consideration 

the deed of Peter Herdien &nd Martha Herdien dated April 14th, 

1937, 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 Oirouit Court is, therefore, affirmed, 




♦bn-w't d-ft.- ,l>e;^.e:9!to •.sir ^tiixf i? ^NftsiisidH «Bili JbiijB 







corporation, ) OF OHIOAGO. 

App.u«. 5 29 J j^ go 6 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court 
of Chicago, entered upon the finding of the court in fpvor 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 contrsot upon which the action is based was 
initiated by a letter addressed by George Hatzenbiihler, as Chairman 
of the Board of Directors of the Modern Woodmen of America, to 
plaintiff* The letter is dated December 19th, 1934, and ia as 


" In the event the Modern Woodmen of America acquire 
title to the property known as the 3.- rftnao Apartment Hotel 
located at 5541 Sverett Avenue, Ohic?RO. Illinois, the Modern 
Woodmen of America hereby ^gree to sell the same to;::ether with 
all furnishings and deliver title free and cle?r of all enoum- 
branoes for the consideration as follows. to~wit ; 

''Sale price to be i326,000, purohsser to pay the sum of 
#56,000 c«sh 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 |370,000, bearing interest at the 
rate of 4 1/3^ per annum payable semi-annually, with principal 
payments to be made at the rate of 3 l/3]fc per annum payable 
annually beginBfcng 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. 

"Shoiild you have a client who is willing to purchase 
this property on the basis above outlined, the Modern Woodmen 
of America hereby agree to accept the same and pay you the 
regular brokerage oommission of Zja of the total purchase price 
at the time of consuaimstion by delivery of merchantable title." 
(Italics ours) 

The record indicates that prior thereto and on Maroh 3rd, 

1930, a bondholders committee was organized to protect the interests 

of the bondholders of a number of bond issues secured by mortgages 



5 '{.sIIaqqA 

ilUA*! .A 

Tr U'/^: -U', ^x^.'iiv.:.': 



*Of^'-DIHO "^O 

s ,AOIfiSMA 'iO j'l 


T rt f>g- 



jflifOO Isqiaiiti).': Tj-'vi .1.-..' J.U:ji;i;%,i>ijj, M jiio'X f. i-;.^qqjS ITS ?/: - ■'■ '' 

I«97 I?, ee WltninLq, ^ah ©cf o* f)9g»lX« enolaei^iMioo %o\ a$voo9n ot 

®ft ei fcnis f-^SOX ,ild-ex tsdmooeC MJjBfo el rted-if©! sdT #lli;*flXsXq 

/ : iwo XXol: 

V^d-i»-~OTq af.f j- oj- Ql^iJ- 

•■ < :: 90a-'!;iCf 

lo IBX/E 9rfcf X'Pr It * 

TisffS- TO .«;oxa9mA lo rts-^oo^f flT:9f!oM ^ni to lovsl ni s 
9d;Jt?i j8QT8jfljt j;|0iaf^eci ^ , ■ lo fflua iBqioitliq pdt at a&aiiuort 
X^qiorsiiq d^iw ^vll.e■JJ,■.. o 3lcr,p,Y-f5<? awnnf? tskJ «i^S\X ^ to s3'4»i 

Qiiril *0oo otf' iifli< TTSSY fcnoosa ail it lo .fcfl® 8d# ^.s s^lntalgso' ^XXiSunnjB 

iieriw iBii\ dtas>9t1it 9xf;t Xl^iiw i » *1.«S!!: a itt isa^ ^'isvo £>«« rfO/pa 

XX,» ,9i/fc 9ffi009cf XXiw i)i,sqaif gxiini.ewft'r Kiwa X^qionliq flSili' sriJ 

*l)99ii lo xtBvtlob lo a^pJb ocf 9cf o* noli'-Torq lo jJxsJ-^fBai 

©Bi^riOTtjq oi sniiliw ei: orfw 3-fl©i:Io a 9v?^ff woy JbXx/orfS" 

fldmfcooW xiieJboM 9il* ,l39ff2Ii-ao srocf.'- aie'^tf adi no \i^9qQiq Bid;i^ 

»dt x/ox Ti«'.a Jbn? ecnrrg ©rf:^ tqsoop. oJ 3013.8 Y^sffrf BOitSicA lo 

soitcj ©fti:;rfOT0c X^Jod" ©d* lo H^ lo noiR8lffsn;oo ojjaagioTCf iBLtrg^ir 

'••sXJi;r sXcfeJflBdonsfl! lo YT^s^'iXsfc ■%€ noitnmtEUBrico lo ssjxd- suit Jjb 

(eii/o BOiXie^l) 

,£(1:5 fl'OTvsM no ba» oSersiit rtoliq Jnrf* a9;J?;0if>nx h'tooat 9rfT 

Bi-as^aJni oxi* i-09;fortq o* fcsainjesio e.nw 99*Jiiffli;oo etsJbXodfcnocf js tOSeX 

segpSiJ-roffl Yd' *ai:wo»8 tst/esi baocf lo aocfmwn b lo QtQblodbaod 9dt lo 


or trust deeds on real estate in the Oity 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 Oorapany as trustee, and in pursuance of this plan, the legal 
title to all the properties involved became vested in the Ohieago 
Title & Trust Company. In each of the trust indentures, George 
Hatzenbuhler, A, J, Browne and Francis Korns were designated as 
trust man-'gers, and were vested with full power to direct the trustee 
to sell 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 
Saranao 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 32nd, 
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 ip336^000* 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 snle 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 abstract: \.. 

areboiL »j[f7 ,o-j^.(?dinO to xtll 9dt at &ief9 trnvt no atetti} ■^9iUT:& to 

3ni;^o«1:^9 ni da^-^tiii'moo cs^^iojl&Aecr etit dstv b9t£r»qooo bam ,8»x;a«i 

i'oi&o9aaQ0 ai J&®#qoJb« n^Iq ©li^ Jbap 4l)9sifiljB8T0»T »t:»w sail tusqotq ailT 

©^©iffO srfi' ni ^©*8»T sai509Cf Jb»vXo vnl BQiifTeqo'rq »xf* XXfi o* 9lttt 

x9Xiftfdfl©x*/?H peaoJLiibnoo nistxso oi' Jp9r;cJw8 .e&lJ'tsqOTq »d& XX©8 o* 

•Jfi/Xoeeffl adif ©Tcwofts o^ tt&nii so' l>Ii«w Jitott© as *Ari* Jbe&yXonoo asw *1 
»l>Xo« »cf Mtroa ii ^ndt oe *asl>ns* '(t-xeqatq sir ' tlj- 

'--?«Ml*«H, •at4>©fi Xfi ' ^"^^ 

ot b^ST^n a£>a9i 4oidw lo wki©* ©rit •H;cf ,0X»©9*:£ XajtmaS ©ao fetift ^olnamA 

©4? *s atil©"i©rf* J&atf4so*9l) «*«*«,© XssTti sriit *xu3f>aslai5 laoil: ®8nrfoi:x;q 

c* JbaTi'at*^! »i J^<itTOa«ii x^xoqoxq ®rf;l' »^le*e aA 4,tOO#9SSt 'to ©oiiq 

©flolaivortq anifl^noo *os:cdiiioo airiT '««^ti©q;oaq ie^foH OBOsiise" ©rl* ©3 

fl'olffw o* 9i9xsi tsfil^o ^.s st/r^a.aBe&gB XBio»q« tt*a£©X Sfl^X*«Xx© o* ©« 

8flii>xs3»T 9lijst9b ifiAio i 5^*930 J ,*09(;di;» bbw "^^ta^^Oiwi •dt 

b9bivotq bna ^BaotiotttS'st ©X^e rouptl fcxic snixxos ^eenlX sxilfcXlx/d 

l»©ilqqfi ©cf od- xanoffi i^B©/iT/»9 'io tasjQ«iB niBtiso a "to tflensTj'Sct »dt tol 

-OTq gniwoXXol ©ri# 8ai«;fnoo ,/ioi*ifc£)iJ ill Jbn/J ,9oi'rq ©BBdoii/q 9xl;^ no 

:*oeT»8cr-« ©dd- x<S ttwedk ©r tsnoleiv 

or trust deeds on real estste in th« Olty of Ohio^go. The Modern 
Woodmen of America oimed the major portion of esoh of these bond 
issues, and oooperated with the bondholders oommittee in effecting 
a reorganization of the financial affairs of the various properties. 
The projsertisa were reorgani^sd, and the plan adopted in connect ion 
therewith, provided for the vesting of the legal title to the various 
re&l est!9!te holdings in a liquidating trust, with the Chicago Title 
& Trust Company as trustee, sjad in pursuance of this plan, the legs! 
title to all the properties involved became vested in the Ohiesgo 
Title £ Trust Compinny. In eaeh of the trust indenttires, George 
Hat?.enb\2hler, A. j. Browne and frenois Korns were de8ign?.ted as 
trust msja^gers, and Kfere vested with full power to direot the trustee 
to sell the properties, subject to oertsin conditions. H^tzenbuhler 
snd Korns were officials of the defendant. Modern Woodmen of Aa^rloa. 

Aiaong the properties involved, -w^s one known as the 
SaraaftO Hotel, and under the arrsmgement made between the parties. 
It was oonoluded 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 hi« by George Hateen- 
b^lar* and as a result of plaintiff's efforts, on January ?.2nd, 
1933, a contract was entered into between the Modem woodmen of 
Aoorlea and one 3a«uel Leeds, by the teras of which Leeds agreed to 
purchase from defendant the real estate described therein at the 
price of |336^\C3O0<» As stated, the property described Is referred to 
S.8 the "Saranso Hotel property," This oontrset contains provisions 
ss to existing les-ses, special assessments aad other taxes to t^ioh 
the property was subject, together with other details regarding 
building lines, zoning and ll<|uor s^le restrictions, and provided 
for the payjHSnt of a certain amount of enrnest money to be ispplied 
on the purchase price, and in addition, contains the following pro- 
visions, as shown by the; 

.Ei/'i* ©dif *»©itlfe o* ^9ftim ILtiJ. rf#Xw !!»»#»•▼ ^Taw Hum ,«T»anfl«« tftirtt 
««fliit^A to fl«atB(»«W trt^Esoli?. 4#«^M«l9)l) »ij[f to iilftioxtto «it»w rnxxoH Juu» 

0* &»»Tja« «l5«'««i tftJiiftf t© mnnt »ri* td ,«&*»* X«»wfflfi£ %m h&m mlrmnk 
»* 6»^t*)1-»t •! iH9tfX«te8*fc t*«««?oiq «wJ* ,lH»rei^B el •OfflCW^SSl to «o<ht« 
rfoirfw e# e«5t.«# ^*rf*e 6«« 8*fl««fc8 *•'■•., .v:-*io»ee »ei90«sX :gflltai3t» o* aa 

-ore ?^j!fiw©XXot «nf* W!rl«S-iT<t« »froX*ifei>« fll i^Ofi ,9»iu:Ci »»<?tfo«J5nj »if* t» 

"5« If, within five dsys from date seller aoquires 
title, a gua-rantee policy be applied for, seller shall have 
three days after guarantee company notifies seller it is ready 
to deliver such policy or reportjf: within which to furnish such 
policy or report, not exceeding, however, thirty days from 
date seller atfquires title. Survey shall accompany policy, 
it being distinctly tmderstood it is the intention of both 
parties to sell the property known as the Saranao Hotel, 

"6, If the report on title by the Ohioago Title & Trust 
Company to seller discloses any defect in title, seller shall 
have sixty days from d?>te which such report be^irs within which 
to ovire 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 mortgage guarantee policy, the amount of which 
may be noted on owner's policy to be purchased, and a-mount 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 aJiy 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 defeofie this 
contra.ct shall, at the option of the seller, likewise become 
inoperative and be canceiled. If the seller shall not acquire 
title to said premises as contemplated on or before April 1. 
1935. the egrnest money shall be returned r-md this conb ract 
shall become inoperative and the oblige; tions of both D?rties 
hereunder shall oeaae . 

"11-12-13, In case of cancellation or termination, 
except for purchaser's default, earnest money shall be refunded. 
Payment and delivery of deed shall be made at office of 
Sonnensohein, Berkson, Lautmann, Levinson & Uorse, Mo 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, 
la the following: "Cancelled by agreement of the parties and 
earnest money returned. May 3, 1935. Modern Woodmen of America, by 
Sonnensohein, Berkson L.L« & M,, R, 3. Bl>och, Duly Authorized agent, 
Samuel Leeds, 0. K. Stephen Love," 

After the execution of the contract, and on April let. 

'ibt'^Bf 8/ .fj; Ti.-.-.. ., ,.: .: . L ;, ■:..).':, SY'JV p:^»--^- 

aiO^l Sy.*^}: V3; "rfijf ^T- ^ . . ^ ;.,.,„ ■ •■ :i(Ui , -' -r . .. <it TO Y' 

•la^oK ' ^. x;fa©q©Tq ami ijLss o* «9i*TJBcr 

JfiiTTT A slJiT . . iiJ- no .tioqei arf* ^I ,8" 

rfoi.ffw'' nrrffi*' s-r^-^rf d^Torx^T rfrir/^ n'olriw aS'sfc ssoT't exJ^^i) ^^^ie 

Iso tRU''-m.s ba.^ ,I- ' no bQ^ou '■^c; xtssi 

9i;s:gd'*3:off lo ' r',5fo tto soncTt/sni 

#bi:/;:f as3d ©T.^.xi XIbiIb <ss ■"■..] d-Tora 

a« ®XJJ:!f" 'io 9o«sf)iv9 tialax'j'i , 'i^'/otcr ni9T9rf 

t. ;._-•:. ; . . ...-J eirf# ,©Icti;t f^nij ai BSn^t&h i.. ■^iis f^tiro t© 

sd £n'.' ^vi^«^®qoni ©icooscf tiSBBriortwq »ff^ 5:0 ttoliqo ©.clef ti! 

*esX mor'i syj?Jo svil: niriJii'' ^'-jc: aiit sroXcw ^Aoa* 

^■.ij'on j0Cf ,&«lXiJ-p9t ©li Xlf - ;)•>; j»Xrf'i:f TO yox.Io- .:'>\ .. .. 

s»»»t «T«ii XXsd» ^x^9ril»b tio" vr ;•.■ sJ: atfi«8 iisd:i- ■ ,;-■ o3r 

,.(,(«• f? l:o floii-Jteitfpos &sii 89*sXqffl$;tnoo >"^wd .ajj^jEsj^ 
"tl*T«q tif^ lo i-fl©fliS»ag« Y<^ Jb8XX»oa.i«0 " :sfxiweXXol »ri* ai 

*<«97oa naxiqcte «2 *0 «ai)9?j: Xex/fiifi8 
^d-eX XligJl no ftflB ,*OBi*noo exl^ lo noiJ-uosx© ©ri* laJtA 


1935, the following further agreement was entered Into between 
Hatzenbiihler for the Modern woodmen of America* , and Samuel Leeds, 
the proposed purchaser of this property: 

"It is 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 3aid contract, whlclx 
provides that the earnest money shall be returned if the Seller 
does 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 remain 
in full force and effects" 

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 into, the record 
indicates that plaintiff had consulted with one John Mack as a 
possible purchaser of the property. In the trial, Mack testified 
to the effect 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 |3, 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 befSre 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 return before the consummation of the 
sale of the property, that Hatzenbxihler 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 th^t the Chicago 

:t^^©q«>*!rq &idt to x&Bcci&iuq. b^^oqorq erf* 
lo asKJbooW iiTsfeoM n3»r-d"'5c' .foa.8 i£cf »s»st .f ;^i** 

usx.: ' ■ ' : ■ 

mti.- c^artaoo 9dt eietMl i^fic «xtX^xilistXq o:^ z«Xil£r<Xrt»sit££[ yd 

; XJJTtacroiq ©'is'' i>»d-o©qBJEii «»Jt^«i«rit ©il ^jsxl? Ijas ,fio?[i®*s*i x<i xairf o* 

00|,Ooa»S| TOl afosrio ® Jb9ir^i«»a»T? - -^ ^':^^''X ^riiJ-feX iso'iBsoeG ao #Bxf# 

ed:r »:SBffi ©* ©Ties-J^ isflvf- ri^is't isv^,. ..*.. .,v ioxxeliiva »s aoatdd'ft'Jl o* 

fi*«? 81/08 i|) »£l tfdt liOBha^tBb ojf i»ve iifutiTi/* er.^ Sostfo floXxfw »d8.8iloiwq 

..'i^».£fl3l9Jb to ReoXHo ^<f;t fll T©Xfiii^a»s#Bfi dtiw mmdmiisCi h^soaora ed* 

&n.B t^isixoXl O* 05J 0* l»»XXsqffiOO e,flw ftri ^iJ&JsXqiBoo asi» X»*OiI ad.-? to 

tfo««*£W9o 9dt «o ei siwd'j'tnigie amoxtw tai^»«J ba&sjiXtfUitssi ts^ arf Jfiifi- 

teldxroffltealsE bi^i ©if jTsiW i>9ili*e©# oeXe ssi^a^Xrs aiJ'X ..add sol: i-4i« o# 

mit to aiott.!fMmiJBiao9 srf^ ©lolocf atut&vi ^oa btb 9d Jaevs 9d& nJt *ail* 

♦»j&»e4 a*iw iM^b bLuodB rsldsjdsiBx^BU iAdt ^x^xsqo-tq »dt to eXjsJB 

jbii.8 *ixfil?rtffllai) n»»w*ocf 3'0!*T:#aco til* to, aoi#i/o«x» 9d*t s9#tA 

o^^^oxriO 9iit *M* *a^fl9l»fc to tXjBXlacf ao »i).si8 «fiw tB^ssp^t s <afc9»J[ 

6onB\3Vfloo to bB9b T»qortq a 9;fx/09X9 ,a9d-ewaJ 8js ,Y«»q«PO *airtT * »XtiT 

t)eJb»onoo ecf o* aasaoa *! ^tOBbciQlsb o# rjoi*a9i;p xil Y^^sqottq 9dt to 

Oa«olrf0 ed* d-r,£[t snlb9900Tq Bidt at bsvlo^al nBtiisq Bdt Lis xd 


Title &. Tr\ist Company declined to execute any such conveyance until 
it was directed to do ao by a coxirt of competent jurisdiction, and 
that a proceeding wag begun in the Circuit 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 others* A decree was entered on 
April 9th, 1935, and this decree not only had to do with the sale 
of the Saranao 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 ia conceded by all the parties 
that the result of the failure and refusal of the Chicago Title & 
Trust Company to execute the proposed contract made it impossible 
for the defendant to acquire the legal title to the property in 
question prior to May 1st, 1935. Thereafter, the defendant served 
notice on Leeds that because of its inability to obtain title to 
the property by May 1st, 1935, the contract was at an end, and the 
|3,500.00 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 th?t 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 j that although defendant's contract with the 
puroh'iser pasaSBaafOA (aa extended by subsequent agreement) provided 
in substance that if defendant did not acquire title to the premises 
as contemplated on or before May 1, 1936, the contract should become 


jb«s ,iioi*oi6»ixtf[; d-ixsJatqmeo to ^Tti/oo e y<* oa O'fe Oif Isa^oo^ib »«« *i 

noitojint^ee; ao^l 3iiiT:i«>»s lo »80ct"U«j ariS^ rot 

.S ei;fjtl .os>:c*4iO iaS- gaiio'&'xiii ssx- iitJS99«;[.! • act* lo 

»X©« ©da- .ri*,lw oi) o^ bnti xJjsii to« ^«to»j& sM* iJJSJi 48S6X ^jtl;?-© liiqA 

9if i »ta« bail's .6 u# Y ■ o aXjea •d# 10I *oj8a*noo a 

9£4t8Beqmi #1 sx>,«fii JOBS^aoo Irasoqoiq ©riJ ©;Ji/o©xe oi' XflJsqasoO d-awTT 
ill X**s:aqo^q ©ri;? 0* «Xti »iiwpofi o;r ^ixaJbael®!* srf^ lol 

9rit bits tlJflS jfic • ^ ^ , ../ xi's.Qqo%q Bdt 

*mXd X<^ fcetqoooB tii& Qi t^n-iuiax sijs ^o^K \6 £otfiaoq»l) 00,003,,S$ 

♦SS6X ,r.JG :?iriuo no ifiiaqfiioO ,t*;,,j.i *i^ sXtlT OB??OirfO 9ff* 

ii"bat*aoo »XcfjB»oxolfl9 bne fciXsv jb oln^ ")?>Ta#n9 *«fl£*flol:sJ& morfir d*Xw 
g'ltliJ-fllJsXq fii rf^aol *98 a«re ■ ix soasb-ioooi-. ul tSX.Re to 

bfcJbJivoaq (Jncmasrcsfi JflsupoBefuB XP b9ba9tx9 •£) i ^ nmnm^ isBRdoruq 

'*liai*^*q »xMf ei 9Utf 9ttupos toa bib toMbatitBb 11 ts^dt 99ttsi9du9 at 

9meo9d htssodQ tcpiiaoo 9dt ,a5ex ,X tsM ©Tto^ed ro no £>ait.eXqina*noo as 


inoperative, and the otoligetion of tooth parties fe»reunder would 

oeaae, that clause waa one for the benefit of the purchaser, which 

he oould and did waive, Further^^the defendant, on May 1, 1935, 

had -feftitn 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 contract with the purchaser w=a 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 purchaser's 

request to convey the premises with such title as defendant then had; 

that plaintiff's contract of employment did not limit the time in 

and that 
which he could produce a purchaser for the property ;_/4;heref ore, 

plaintiff had a reasonable time to procure such purchsaer, which 
reasonable time, under the facta 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 coiAraot with the defendant to 
pxirchase the property, and regardless of the faot that such contract, 
on May 3rd, 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, re'^.dy and willing to buy the property on the terms 
fixed by the defendant in its contract of employment with the plain- 
tiff, and thnt 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 s5le, was a conditional contract 
of sale; that it became enforceable only upon the happening of a 


doh i ■■■■>.: i.di 4?»B.t5«6 

f>9*ftXcrros»#aoo -.sjiaff bad 

^ .cilbnm si^sjottii ^thtp'A^ blaom it 

i^Aiis od- itftBJbflslQ/) lo i»«wlaa •Xtfall Jl # iff txui bail ItfllXlw s/f# Id 
iviitxa ^*r;^'.-.- ^>«Biloic«q 94* to #89Jtfp«t 9it iUst^ 

t9'I0'i&tE8riA_iT£i'*sCiu.:. ■■ i ■xseiUlO'xi'Ci i: sonioiq iiXtfOO 9x1 tioldn 

4$eB0 $xxf;^ nl 890flj<i}esii;/o%lo baa 9il* isl^H^i «<»ii:xv( »Xcf.6aoe«9t 

fcflBffiafe Jba;8 il'sawpett ^sowi^^Si. . . ■ ft©XX«oxijso aew ,3£SI tJbrtC TC«M fl© 

ftXd-iit svAfl S^on Jbii) sri .tsrii- bmjov^ b^ba^i^iq adi ao ti-fljefeflalafi 9d& to 

jlXits «J8w ll:id-fu^Xq »sit \<i bQOuberq x^sedo^u , .d"X»qoaq s>di at 

9dt b&tuo99 b»£ ka£ba&t9b ^dtt r&i": .iiM£l9t>aso douB -x9:t-lA 

mar'-'^ ^di no Y^iscotq &d^ x^d oJ ^ifss ^ ■ ^:l^ii X^a^X 

':a&m\oiqm& to tosti.. :ia£Jba9t9b 9dt \d bItxJtt 

: '.■:nba9Ji'&l ^ ■"-•'■ ' ^.'-'ttt 

9ri;J od hviiitn^ amsosu ^Bull's.) iioiie ao 'i&BsdQX-j-i doun o# \di*qo'xq 

,*ne£BYoXqiy-' cxl ni Jbf' noisaiflsxcoo 

d^o.^Ti-aoo Xj8api*il)floo s hew «9X88 lo tfo^id-noo »Xcr««OT«lne ba^ vaj. . * 
« lo gnlxiaqqjsrf »dt aoqa y^^o tXcr«»o^olfl9 siftsoscf *1 iBdt jqIcb lo 


condition subsequent, naroely, the acquisition of the legal title 
thereto by defendant by May 1st, 1935; that it ceased to be an 
enforceable contract by either party if the title were not acquired 
on May 1st, 1935; that the record ie clear that such title was not 
so acquired and the failure to eoquire it was without fault of the 
defendant, and that defendant did not refuse to oonsximmate 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 w?!s bound to 
perform, and that the contract became functus officio and was so 
recognized by the pxirchaser by the acceptance of the earnest money 
and the cancellation of the contract on its faoe» 

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 ifi'oodmen 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 Ist, 1935, and subsequently by operation 
of the extension, to May Ist, 1335, that the contract would be in- 
operative and void, and the money was to be returned, I didn^t see 
the extension agreement, and didn't know what ws in it, TJae 
contract speaks for itself in saying that on May 1st, 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 'Attorneys would get together, » 

As to plaintiff's activities in the matter, Maok testified 
to the effect that the first time he knew anything about the 

£[5 »^ 0# fcijie$90 *i *<»iJ* jSeex ,tal x^ "?«* Jff.e&atslsb ^ oS■«Tsrf^^ 

jfofl srr »In-i:# rfoi/s f "ff;!- ti-^sIo 8i fct©o©t ©ff* *.8rf* jfiSSX j^el fftM flo 

wff<j.f«!fro?» o^ »*?i/1:^i I^oa bib ts^btioUst i&tit has ^tattbasYifb 

•rot #.*»ri* al3ii»>tK< :n)Bl»fif?^«£> orft .MXisI: n»i;J-ii>«oo erft «»£{» 

o* &m/oc •rf.t -sofy fi r'-iditdct ib^aoitaum 8rtOBJ9St erf^ 

05: s<?w fcae oxoxtlo aj/j-j^m;!: miS&M- fis~s%ta®& »di t^tlt htt» ,atrao^T9q 

©•£«» ifSffilMjoW ft-retoM »v«lX©ef 1 ••sall>©»««iq ®8«il* x*-f®JS> otf *ai# 

**» .feBjl sd bXi/oo 8fi 'ijXd-qttO'iq ae »«'x©»£> s *»^ o* ewoixaa bas ^nlllt-n 

'"pri »XJ.t:f 5rrit It *^1 nl fl:oiaiTcT<r a £i«di fifoft's^fioo 9if*3 ii *firiif W9fl3f I 

aoii-^teqo ■«ef itX^nafwpSisdjya Jbfls ^SSSX »#»X XiTqA Tjd Jba-rXx/pos aaarf *oa 

o©8 t)nbi^ I ,b'i;:rtrf^\ x^nc>ta 9di Ijas ^btOr boB avXtsieqo 

litx-^ b9il.f& &BUl i^tsd ,noi»a»*X0 9ff* 9*.«.x*oa©ii tf-i/ifcXfc I «»X*i* 

*Jt f)rr®;^x« o* s«-tos »t®w ^•'^^ wo"^ .S8V9 3-«ai^i ^ ^Irft/cfnssleK .rrM 

f)tx9cfx9 o;^ siiX f>Xi;o-w I fciri fcXoJ I .et-^^ X*»nXn xo Ted-xit& tyJslrf# «©1 

".TSd^fsao* *3a fcXwow eY*xn:o*^Jp arfo fci«»s s/1 jbfls eyai* x^iJt^* ta^ftX J* *X 


possibility of purchasing the Siiranao Hotel was on December 18th, 
1934, when the plaintiff submitted hia plaintiff's contrp.ot to Ma<Sk, 
and that he. Mack, accepted it on the following day; that subsequently 
the #3,500,00 was returned to plaintiff, and that after plaintiff 
had given the witness an acoeptsnoe of the deal, plaintiff showed 
Mack a letter of authority. Mack further testified in substance, 
that plaintiff told him about 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 suoh title; that 
he knew that the Modern Woodmen of America did not have title at 
the time he made the deposit of t3,500«00, but that he wa.s then 
assured by Hatzenbuhler that they would be in a position to consummate 
the deal in February, He further testified to the effeoft that his 
position was that unless the Modern ?/oodmen of America acquired 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. Hack also 
testified that he asked for an extension from April 1st, to May 1st, 
and thst he asked Mr, Stephen Love, an atto»ney-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 Hack, was represented by Stephen Love, as 
attorney for the purchaser and the defendant. Modern Woodmen of 
America, by the law firm of Sonnensohein, 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 April 34th, 1935, which is 
as follows: 


,rf^8I T«cf09oaQ no 8;w IstoH«TJ8S sifJ siilsfirfotirq "to Y^-^i-tcfisaoq 

'ilia-fii^Xtr to **•»*•*«?* *fl* \'ititat&Lq ot hBssratni esw OO.OOS^Sf 9d& 

,©9«^itifcr£;8 111 fe»11fi*85Jt rW.trift iem ^x^^'^otitus to teJ-^eX s atOBii 
saiMs^ #tiew daltfw aEf«Ji#«gl#iX iiis#T«o ^wocf'? «irf l)X«* tiX*ni«Xq fBdt 

, ,;^9£Ww:«j «jrft (©# SX#i# 9v»ri #ofl fjlli ftoltSttA "io ndxeJ&ooW flialxjM 
^..«ii? ;6X;fi* rfos« t»'g e* S^-ic^ *****•' X"*^^ ^'"^rf* fcsfliiotfli bjpjw sif Jfirf;}- 

fltarii- sj?w «rf i-Bif* ttrff »00»003,-' 1.0 j-iiSoqsJb 9df •Jbaai sd ©ik1* erfS- 
9Ssmm^^iSXi0G •ow ifsdo ■■■>Xd[trtffl0s#8H yd hatuaas 

9li-jt# BftYiirfkOf? solTsisA to flfifflljooiy flteJboM srf* eeaXntr J?5ff* 8«iir ixoititoq 

®lU b»xlt »*.eifoit«i ' tno« sS^ oJ Y^TCJs<f ^®*» ^^sd* ba& ,Y;Jx9qoncq 

obXb :i»8il *J>itx/oD' St! oif fe©i:ia«i5 tX»^i***««J8'*'* t^^^ doirfw ari «sal3- 

ni tf-oa 6it ,w.€X«*j8-x»fl*«*^^ fl^ ^s^'Cl flailqaje ,tM fceaffe* »il tBdi tan. 

tSfiasJ lBum»B ^aoiitt>B&a!irf' nMt kt f»dt 8xs»qq5 *I •Jb»flt»Oiioo siw 

to neffljboow H*toJb«M ^itt»tiitiib»t(f btx» IfteMoi;; 

tJtaBs^uPj triosi-rfte ,ni&xfOBfl0fiflo6 to artit w«X srf* ycf «je6ii9aA 

^sba^d bae AoM Tot sfliJojB Y»^iOi^^« srfrf^avoJ ateriqad-a 
3rtsc!9»ag.R sftXsa Xisflis-t^o od* to floitwoMa micli -x^iln tsA& b&ltttnQ^ 
ft «jrnslbfj©t©b mdm TSt^sX ft bsvieosT sd ^i-neflsesiafi floiensitxe ©ri* fins 
ei dclffw «55ex ^rfJ^'S XlaqJ^ £)8;f.el) abftda Z&uiasS ot besanbbn XMroiie 

:a«oXXot 9iS 

"Under the terms of the contract between you and Modern 
Woodmen of America, d?^.ted January 32, 1935, as gjaended by 
letter dated April 1, 1935, 'if the seller (Modern Woodmen 
of America) shall not acquire title to a^id premises as con- 
templated on or before May 1, 1935, the esrnest money shall be 
returned snd this contract shall become inoperative and the 
obligations of both parties hereunder shall cease, » 

Unfortunately, the decree in the case of Modern Woodmen 
of America v. Qhioago Title and Trust Company was not entered 
until Tuesday, April 33, 1935, Under the statutes, this decree 
is not final until thirty days therec'fter* It is impossible, 
therefore, for the Modern Woodmen of America to ?cquire the 
title by May 1, 1935, 

Hugh T. Martin, the attorney for our opponents, advised 
the court and us that he intended to appeal. If he does, there 
ia no possibility of acquiring good title for many, many months, 
and, therefore, on behalf of Modern Woodmen of America we shall 
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 

Hatzenbijhler, as representative of the defendant, a letter dated 

May 10th, 1935, which is in part as follows: 

"As I said yesterday, in reg^jfd to the Saranao, 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, Vm 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 w^-s cancelled and the securities returned to 

Mr, Leeds, I can't recall whether I talked to Mr, Leeds again with 

Mr, 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 Mr* Maok and other 

persons, when I told Mr* Hatzenbuhlep 'My people are still ready 

to go ahead,' by 'my people' I meant Mr, Maok or Mr, Leeds, not 

the Modern Woodmen, Mr, Hatzenbuhler knew that. As late as 

September, I still tried to negotiate some deals, and he said, 

'Peterson, the Modern Woodmen won't do any business with you on the 

sale of any of these properties if you are going to insist on g 

eommisslon on the Saranao*' Ue told me I had no commission coming. 


9 lit M« «V-i 

"" jb 3 "x : , .*^ ■. ■ '■■ :.' J n e 'rw V 

t r litqA b&t^b TSitt9l 
so' 10 ao J5)&d"<'Iqifi9;f 

^;:-/-:J;vj.-- ■■ ,■ " : ' ' .' '. ,; ; '■"• 1o xHLldiieeoq on si 

«^9s^;?floo ©ii:;? l^OdBO has-. >j« i> 

:swoXX©t 8.)s *trjEq at Bt dplxlvi ^,^SB1 ^diOl •<ieii 

,i;oY dthv r^itBia sd* qi/ ©ifiJ- oJ £)pXa so'' XXiw I ^'iHaii sldit t&#1A 
".iuoc'r wax iX^i.t liJtw I rioifJ-^- ba? tl/^'^'f) i.zQiji, b it qXsxI XXi'^ 

/SXXsofl' • ojg^^floo 9dt 

1:9x1*0 bn& io . ♦•.■:'■ 'xr' asi#T»QOtq ®di lo 11b no eX,8»i) »sob saoXo ot 

YfeBft'x IXi*e 313 eXqosci xM* iftfdycfass *«H #-rM Mo* I ixstf^V .anoaisq 

*on tal)99J .tM 10 :rfOBM .xM tnijaa I 'aXqoaq xw' "^cf » ,i>j89xt8 og o# 

8S »*sX aA ,i»dt w»0:4 7©Xri0dnos*JBH #01* .naaiiJooW nnafioM ari* 

,JblGa ail bixjs ,sXBaJb attoa &tslto^9a o* A>»Jhr* XXi*a I tuactoa^qae 

ari* ao uox ri*iw aaaiiiBUcf xns oli #»iK>ir namfcooW maiiJoK ad* ^noarta*©*!' 

'« iio t^t^at o* ani OS 9««ox li 86i*T9qoTq eeaxl* lo x«fl "to aX^e 

^anlmoo noXssli-ao^o on Ib^ri I aa IsXo* aH •.oanaTae ari* no noieaiffimoo 


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, X made a previous deal for the Modern 'Woodmen 

in June 1935, when the property was conveyed; tha 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 Matte son v. Walker. 849 111. App, 404, an action was 

brought by a rea.1 estate broker to recover for oommiseiona alleged 

to be due him. In that oase, 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 0, 
Walker will pay to you a Z-^ commission on the sale to Berman 
of the property at 173 North Michigan Avenue if the sale is 
actually consummated but not otherwise; if the deal falls 
through and the sale is not made, whatever the reason mB.y be, 
Mr. ifelker will pay no coMmission. fill you kindly sign the 
receipt at the bottom of the carbon copy 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 th?)t 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 th?t arises 
under e construction to be placed upon the contract encompassed 
within the letter of Sentley 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 through and the sale is not made whatever 
the reason may be, Mr. talker will pay no commisaion.' 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 ^ps therein provided th=»t iDlain- 
tiff should be paid a stipulated sum by defendant as oofflmissions, 
'when the deal is consummated*, and that for the re-^sons 


ls9b r^AtoaM bs.ti ^rs-vynod ^I .Xasauoo ntti to Bolvts aoqu xlttt»bir9 

a&tnboo^ ni^' ■ ~ ' olveici ■ . >ijjcijtl* *fl*w sIbsI) 

esw to«tt?rKC an? in^x'^.vnoo a.^si? Tf^Tsqorrc 3JM nsxl^ ,5Sei 9aijt al 

,, -mdlssiSjKOO tot" T'^YO«f0f 0? taifoT'J o-i-its* X'-.-"t ■' ^d' Jrfeixo'rd' 

lltl:^.-. . rial ^ni*oIIol 

flfTSCTe- od- si;?:fs 9r];^ a :;>■ Xflq IXiw t«3fXjR^^ 

si '?.: - ' ^-^ •• . ■.■--■■- •• ■'- '-^-- — ■ -■■•' "-^ 

%Ai !■■ ''ii x;oY XliW ♦ 30 on \ »tM 

»',T9;j3'©x X/^«ia43o Birii' 
, ta« X»€' nB&tnuq B J>®two3e i3TJoa<^ sriT 

Yif'iaciiS'sii 94* y&VTj 'fjaJbxisldJb t^* noXi'«TBXo«£> ^di at 

9di iMdt salJbXprf .: - xlcri/'i 9ri* Jbs«ixootq bad laalottcf srI* 19*18 

: p i^uot eldt ^i^vooer toa bluoo 'i'ittcUsS^ 

!■:■•-.■?:'•: ^ .i'j ;.;)•• ,^u-.i'^ioaii •rot ialQq 9no d'vVrf si ST»rfT« 

^«o^>i. ,-:-X ■^■■■r-"" '--^-^ ,i:ii;?rTr" r- -v? --./■+rr^:.^ to T?>!f*©X 9Xit .*;t':^?.-. 
"'-' s. fce^ i-; e'^i'li ''O oJiKjsib on f:. 

prr'.'^ ,, ,, _ .^..^i-afii •■■>■ . ... .-,.*• Qd'i alniii-'/g T^-vr.. 

:'f. ^df tiJL ts: i3 'i^'O xoJ. .•^■ 9d;t to ctm 

i9V9;rf5iIvr j'-^n Bi ^-il'-f; '.• ■ _ :j%dt eXX-el i . - i ti» :«!;:to-- 

*on (8i *.l '»jBoi... .'.a iBq XXXtt t8:SX,'^^ ♦'t'sl ,9<:i Y«flJ ^o^^ 

-4800 ©rlS" o;t • aond avjd X>Xi;ow Ttltninlq isdi t 

*^*SEH«Xo 3xsi©39Tol 9dt tol *i;<f noxseiii 

(noiniqo JoAicfsdi?) tG*?^ .'iqA ,XXI 88X .MawY-gM .v afi^e^H nl 

; ie;a tri/oo sirii- 

■i'!:i:;+rfi..oXg tc-^riif sonsMve *?riw mo-xi f.^vr. ■■■■.■■- j^-^ *I" 
•n ■ ' bfiblvorq niSTSriJ e.?-vf ti lart* jd-o.f-T*noo QrJS- i>9d-l.':?r!-b 

8floieaic:i:i00 s£ *nsM?i1:of) y^ bwb f)g;fF.Xl;c^it8 « £)im scf Mt/orfa tli* 
* 8flo«s9t sriit tol ;^i!lri* ban t^bsi^mnjjBOOO at l^Qb 9dt flsxfw* 


disolosed by the evidence 'the deal' was not oonaummated. 
'■■ATaere the contract is such th3t 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, a 
fulfillment of those conditions is, of course, a prerequisite 
to his right to recover compensation,' (23 Ency* Law - 3nd 
l!d# - p» 918; Meohem on Agency, See* 965; Ballard v, Shea n 
132 111, App, 135, 139,)" 

In Walker on Real Estate Agency, Section 449, page 385, 

it is said: 

"Where the contract makes the right to conjmlssions 
dependent upon consuixenation, a 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 purchaser wse negotiated by the plaintiff, and we 

again call attention to this provision of the contfaot: "If the 

seller does not acquire title to s^id premises as contemplated on 

or before April Ist, 1935, the earnest money shall be returned, and 

this contract shall become inoperative, and the obligations of both 

parties hereunder shall oeastf." This time was extended to May 1st, 

to the property 
19S5, end it is admitted that the legal title/WWtaatet had 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 purchaser and not as the 
agent of the defendant In this case. The record is very clear upon 
this pointy 

We are of the opinion that the trial court was not in 
ervor in finding for the defendant. The judgment ig, therefore, 



,; aoo 'ioa 9.b^ *£ adt^ 9on©.&iT9 arft xd b960lt>(-tb 

:jq 9'ilict'!' *^ff,+ 1:0 i'o. it to sIrs :!:o 

9&iBl!ij^&tii-i.i ; tJtTifoa lo t ^ ' tbnoo ©tuiid' 1:0 tnsifillxt Itjt 

JfeaS ~ ^^yl *YOjHa. SE) '♦,<ic' , uo nsvoa-^Jt 0* c^iisi^: »i:i' 0;? 

"(^feiSX «oeX .cqA ,XXI •£ 

,6&S: &^«q ft6<N^ jHoii^oaS ,^a»sA »d-.s;i-& .10 laafXavf nl 

:i}i'':£ si Ji: 

tHi»£«ri»%»i;' • : •■.mi(»<i Hst&m'St ©rf* -^fftd* fa »8.80 srft if I 

»rf*'il»\ :.#»«« Jfi'r ;i»|-9©^;, i:*fi:ai##« II.«© flXsa* 

:XqrE»*c<' ^X*i* ©T:ifjoo?; toff b*o£» IdXXse 

ha.9, ^b^axui ^ . ' il^cf 10 

flsri# ton 5pri isitM»M\^tt It IjSgdX «ii* #«!» Jb9^;i-i«i&« si *i Jbae ^3SeX 
-•xiKi 9iit nftrfw d-ari* £i9*oa ad" oi ci ,faAbn^f&ii x^ J&9^:ix;?>eA ixsscf 

rioiifw «i J«isbn9tft* Ito lX«/f t*lt« tsJd'sX « xcf JbainsqaieobjB 8.f»w 

9rl# lo t^lXltfBfll M;f to ^siiaoflstf *Ad* hQtPtB x^i&tl'i.iodqs ttj^yv tl 

ari^ 0B &oa hug, t^B^dorirq 69Boqo*rn' ;^ir5 1v.. ;liro-;^- ^' ,. ■. J:*Bi»Xq xcf 

aoqu T.r^Io yisv 82 Jbioost srf? > v r : ;f» to ta^^a 

^tiiioq Btdt 
at ion apw #1000 Xjcii* arfi' *prf* ixolaiqo til# to •?[« •'* 





0. I« T« OORPOHATIOfi, a corporation, 
(Plaintiff) Appellee, 
GEORGE M, ST2VENS, et al. , 

(Defendants below), 

(Intervening Petitioner) Appellant.OJQ OTA 606 

This is an appeal fro* an order entered in the Municipal 
Court of Ohioago on March 13th, 1936, striking the intervenixig 
petition of Oliver a, Vvatkina, filed in a replevin suit brought by 
the plaintiff against George M. Stevens and others, to recover the 
possession of certain refrigerators. The order appealed frcm also 
found the right of possession of the property described in the 
petition to be in the plaintiff. Judgment was 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 Ottgaby-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. S^itkins is th?t 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-Grixnow Company and George k. Stevens, 
latklns, the intervening petitioner on February 8th, 1935, purchased 
the building and that on that date he puroh sed all the interest of 
the lessees in the refrigerators described in the statement of claim 
filed in this proceeding, ealthat the contracts for the leasing of 
the refriger?itors were on that date assigned to the intervening 


.OMGIft'O to 

*Tiraoo SHT to koihko sht asravuaa j^iah aoiieoi, . 

aflixr6vi9J0X sr.i^ •^aiiii'its ,SSei ,jfl^5X doi;«i4 flo ojjBOlriO tp #^«op 

^di *©xii6^« i>9i«*xi9 B^.v taQsagbvl* ^ttitnt^lq 9di ul ^<i oi aQiili^q 

•*i9ri ©aasTiig^q* on iJoXJtl !fXi/e nlvaXqsa sn* ai 
v.„.... ^. ;. V...... .o<:aiJ0oo js floqw l>0*3OXf)9Tq ei aold-o/i ©riT 

arfT .'•-:!- ^ma Xbs'x alstr^o 1<i rraawo XfliO ilaascf " wCi" «o5 «*a93-e as 

*c«>vXiO lo ii©l*lt9<!t S«l«9Vi ^?*«}dj»« mat -Wl^aX&lq »i 

gni£iXiucf i? at bi»Oii^^ a-roJjBtisgirtlQtt ©8«>ii:' 8flW*j8W <*&. 

jiBiiavQi'^ . . ■\jfl«qffioO womri«>-YCf«3Jt3Cw ©rift ii«aw*9cf'aoo 

fc«eiErfoiif : t i-'l;*-8 XT^BusdQ'i no nsnol^iJsq gninevrisinx Sffrf- eanliJail? 

!to #8»T[3*ni 9x1* XXjs bssi-xle'sxiq ed »4-jeI3 d" jIJ- no tutit buB sclfiXii/cf 911* 

aioXo 'to *nQm©J--6*e 9ff * at fcsdiToeef) B^tod-axaglTlQ^ sri* ni 8998E9X •xtjt 

lo anXs-veX edit aol 8*o.(sad-noo «fl* *Eri*ttta jgjaiJbgwoorrq eXd* ai JE>9XX1 

■gaxa9-nQint sui^ o* JbenaXeaxs 9t&b i»clt ao ©tsw aioJaTogiilST sri* 


petitioner by the lessess thereof; th^t thereafter payments 
according to the terms and conditions of the contracts were made to 
the plaintiff by the intervening petitioner, and that all the 
conditions of the contracts were fiilfilled by petitioner tintil on 
or about May 1st, 1935; thst on that date one of the refrigerators 
ceased to operate satisfactorily, and gave off displeasing odorfs, 
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 procured to stop the flow of gas; that the petitioner 
caused the plaintiff to be notified of the breakdown of the refrig- 
erator and requested that 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 maintain the refrigerators in good working condition 
foar a period of thirty six months from the date of their installa- 
tion; th^'t he further notified the plaintiff that other refrigerators 
had ceased to function, and that plaintiff wrongfully refused to 
repair the same, thereby making it lenessary for the petitioner to 
purchase other refrigerators to replace the same, to the petitioner's 

le in the sua of i|3,000« It is to be noted that the intervener 

does not claim or assert any right of property/ inL^Ji® title to, 

nor does he claim the right to or ask to be given the possession 

of the property involved* 

Paragraph 33 (l) 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 
eases pending before justices of the pec;Ge any such person may 
intervene by filing af! an affidavit stating his claim. The 
court or justice shall direct a trial of the right of property 
as in other c^ses and in case judgment is rendered for the 
intervening party and it is further found that such party is 
entitled to the possession of all or any part of the property, 
judgment shall be entered accordingly and the property to which 
the claimant is entitled ordered to be delivered to him along 

:<.j 9 

G&asitiiXBq istflj^sTsdii- Jxr/.t jlos'isri* esOQsei ©rid" x** i;»noJ:*i*9q 

^fW II.e Jed* bflB tSwcoiJliteq gninovis^flj: ©ri* xcf m^nijslq srft 

xio IlEJ'fiJ/ t»noi*lJ»q ^cf bnlltlSss^ &%9v BttiBtinoo ©rfd- 1:o sstoittbaoo 

Bioi&rQ^i'x'x&'x 9(it \o ©no sttsb tfiiii no tndt jSSeX ^t&l ijb^ #iiocfj3 tto 

,sxo.f)o ^iB»©Xq8li> Yi.0 ©rj8j;j JE>nB ,Xljt5O*0?''i8ii'BB ©^jsrrsqo o* Jb©e«90 

®oi VTSs 8 * XI tfftir" ISttii gni--^ ■;■>/•. v o;f fcso-i-,, v-rri©!®! 

TC®aoi#i*«q ©if* *«ri[* J8«3 lo uroll: srf* qo#© 0!l- fcQt^eo'fq 9<J filuoo asm 

-^IrlBt 9tii \<i flwofcJCfiSTCcif Qai lo .*?9i1:i*O0 »cf o* tJlial&iq, 9dt bBBuao 

B^tJitttsLq £«XX«o btis tfeeTJwtfSi ^^d #i jBrfd" h9ia9up»i bar, ro&sx9 

'lOfrs'sX arf* *Bff* *o©n© ©tf* o# ,sflli>Xiwtf ©rf* Bl bBltBtfiai stsw ©rrore 

~sXX,R*eni ^iori.t lo ©*vel> ari;^ aoTl 8£f*«oa xle x^%tcit to l)oiT»q « sol 

&& Ivdex/l-si '^XXjc/i^flOTw 'fii*nJ;«Xq i'srfit Isn^ »nol;J-OiUtfl 0# *©8s©0 fcjiif 

0* isxioi^iJaq &dt trot t^eBS»<« *! s-n^sfe® Y<^»isiJ* ,©aB9 erit ti.««q©l 

't^i^t^A^ftq 9/tf't 0* t'^^B ®rf* ©©aXq&it ®* ©lotf'stdsJtTl©* x»ll#o ©sarforci/q 

taneTt3#ni Bdt &sdt b»ioa scf «>* sX *I ♦000t&"^ lo iears ©tf* al ©sflajsJb 
•10 n 
,0* ©Xtl? 9il*^X\X#i:©0otg 1© #j^ia t^* #ic©8S*? to BuieXo Jofl seof) 

noi88©©coq ©rft r?'=^"r : ■^'^' "■ •■■«-' 10 0* tdgls ©ri* isl»£o ©ri a®oi^ xofl 

tftavlcvfltl T£*t©q«)tq ©«i* lo 

„p;! :-;,!■' T-ii ^i.<^tS. sionilll ,exX i-ffii-q^rfO (X) SS rfqsrr^i-^'i 

■Xa.<^ biotii9t lo e5^XR?oo ni 3iill!>n©q ©©as© fliVsXqdit fli" 

JjgJtvsXqQ'j Y*'-^9^o-q ©ri* jjnlJDJ:.sXo *nRJb/T9l©Jb ©ri* fljsri* -xoj^^o nocxaq 

rfowe ni tn^ ,,tivf5.f;X'tTis ytf aoiti^ocj; ©id snitli^sv ,9n9VT93ai Tsrc 

vr,iH noaisq dovR tjhjs ©o.-^sq ©rft lo s^olieui stoloC sxtli^neq 8S>s?o 

etlT .sitMlo ©iff anl 3-3*8 .tivabilLa fli? *« gcxiil xa* *nsvT-?3-ffl 

Ytsaqoiq lo id;.]tt 9x1* lo X«l'r* £ toBztb LIphh eot&stsl to iruoo 

©ri* tol bsTfttasi 8i d-nttmafcx/t ®e«^ '"-^ *^- 89e«o isrf^o rxi ss 

di x*xpq riojja tsdi fciwol T'>ri*^l ex *i bar. xttsq, gnin9VT?*al 

ev-j-rraqoic ©rf* lo *ijscf t^^^^ 10 XXjs lo aoipfesseoq 9x1* 0* ^©X*i*xt^ 

doid^ oi Yt'xaqoTcq odi'ban xX^niMooos Detain© 9cf XXi^xie ^nsmsbx/t 

with payment of his costs. In case ^udgagnt 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 clslaiant. If the clainant is 
e non-resident of the State he shall file security for costs 
as required of non-reaident 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 vie?r of the specific terms of the contracts 
which reserve title to the lessor, mb he has claimed that plaintiff 
did not have the right to possession of the refrigerators when it 
started its suit because it hnd 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 wrs made upon him for the property before the 

replevin suit was instituted. Upon this question, we cite the 

following: In Oeraci v. Sultan. 368 111, App. 294, the opinion in 

schwa mb Lumber Qo . v, Schaar. 94 111, App, 544, is cited. In the 

latter case this court said: 

H I The evidence in the case tends strongly to show that 
the appellees c^me into possession of the lumber in question 
wrongfully; that they purchased the lumber in question, with 
other property, from one Andrew J» Olson, in consideration of 
the cancellation by appellees of certain indebtedness from 
Olson to them, and other considerations; th-t, Olson, at the 
time, had no title whatever to tlie lumber, it having been delivered 
to him by plaintiff to be dtied in his kiln. This being true, 
appellees took no title by their purchase from Olson, and their 
possession of the lumber was wrongful and tortious as to plain- 
tiff. In order to sustain replevin when the poasMsion of the 
defendant is wrongful, a previous demsnd of possession is un- 
necessary. Clark V, Lewis . 35 111. 418-2S; Stock Yards Oo. v, 
Hallory. 157 111, 56S; Fifth Am. & Eng, Snoy. Law, 538,1. (1st ed. ) 
Galvin V. Bacon. 11 Me. 38 (2 Fairfield Rep,); Wells on ;^epl. , 
see, 365; Butters ,. v. Hau,ecwout . 43 111, 18-24; 8rune r v. Dybgll .43 
ill, 56; H^^rdy v. Keiler. 56 111. 153; Tut tie v, Kpbinson. 78 
111, 333-4; Oswald v. Hut oh ins on ^ 36 111, app. 373; Trudo v, 
Anderson. 10 Mioh, 357-67; Rosum v . Hodges . 9 L. R. A, (3, Dak.) 


■53^0 «I •a^Ku': - - . •■;-^ 9»Cf I- -jz-: . _ 

69lcM;^fl:^ 9c" XXene Sfi . aiKt tc istc ex 

8i :tn!?.fli.aIo 9rf* Jl ♦;< . SiiJ *ti,.v. . ■ ® Sf^v, 

iJ-on aexl 9i!£« cr.5ri;f aa^cS-a x©fl9TX9*/c|| ©d* ^.telTol xlqei uM al 

08 oaofc tvfiil of •\{;*^9qoTq sxli- o;^ «X;fi#. .WJk to ,«|i46i9mro IjsjsIjbXo 

tl uMw »to>t,si:®aiTtj8wt 9di to fwisasseoq o* *ilji4Xv.aut#- #vjsri ion Aifc 

".d'ix.fe axolMWsf los^ajd;*- Xfiwrlsz « feiwj.:rtoi8a9B8oq .tol bamx^b ,e ^cf 
ssfeaw i©d-®^i? ex 9%9si ls»flti»xs.#eJb »d ©1 aoXts&up ^Xxxo ©/IT 
gflxaeiHiRiii;- .ni 'in'r'm al 9m truo^ arfJ jtsaevrtaJni ^cf Qiwsrn a^iworis erf* 

,.t,3vXoyai y*'3:»<IO^<? ^^^ io iSolBaaaeoq «ri^ o* #xi^i5 on a^rtaesa oriw J^jb 

su-iA 3rr©t®a' y^TaqoTq erf^ act mXsi «o<50 •iisai aww baaffiOfc on ©aajjoscf 

Sit^ »*JI:o »iir »Koi*»ewf5 aJtii* fioqU ,Jb8lxf;fi:f«fli s.sw *ix;a olvaXqai: 

ni KoljRiqo ari^T ,M?S .qqii ,1X1 -8SS ..^A>,>tJJ/^- ,v l2t3LSp «i :a«XwoiXot 

Silif 111 .,5>-.-r'r, ^;- ,>:j.o; ...jqA ,XXI *9 .xjB^iloa .v . oO X9^mu>l MaAviAr>^ 

t.'P.sii woxie o* ^Igae«^a 8|>xi9;J 9C)»6 »ii* aX ©aiit«i£,'i;v« aal ' ■• 
to aoiJjBTSl^iBnoo ni ^noulQ .T. ^axtoA «ito fi^oil «x*"' 

9dt is ,noaIO «*-flvt ;< 

leuy C^ i.iOBXs 

Txari* bns tnoaXO asoit S8,f . ■»:!* yd 9l;tl& oa it)o;^ & 

"sti^lq oii'tm 9uoU- ' '' ■ '■ ■' "'''croiuX erf* to itci... „.. 

air* t© floXaansacc Jaua o* isjjto nl . . 

,,XqaF HO eiXa.'. ;(»vi 

«■■-■ '■ , . .„ , ^ rrj 

(,i,©0 .Irtt Ib .a'e « eftsttoH «v^Bu;80h' TVfc^Vc;6 •Hoii Oi <, 

«»In wells on Replevin, aupra> 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, suoh possession was so far rightful that the real 
owner must make demand before bringlhg suit," and another line 
of cases holding "th??t where one purchased property from one 
who had no right to sell, it wf?s a conversion, and the owner 
could sustain replevin without dem?.nd, 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 wei^t of authority, the better reason and the" later 

We are of the opinion th^t under the facts shown here, 

&o demand by plaintiff was necessary and that the judgment of the 

Htuiicipal Covirt should be and it is affirmed, 



M ed!tiit?joD«t io^;t 

t£rg;jA, ,iiiv»Icfaffl ft© «IX««tf «I»" 

©'IS.:;.';-'- i;-^!-j -■ 
■d'nsi.sqq.s ®rtO sc 


• '■- - , i- -' •....>J xX 

iaxms 26fmo 

. ., , ,.■- -.■' -■'■^^ - o to 

-. .... t _ - ^ifoil^i?' ' J?;oo 

£.9?#bjk «ri.i? nJ; 9iis% 9rfX «,»en«rs» on -^0x30 aeifacf 

^ iltotiitSB "io Jrfsisff arid- 

,.55&rf nwor'-B sJosl (Wl^ tSlJfliy tMi notalq<i ^ni lo ©<i« 8«? 

,f'UD«00 .t» t»i2uSK CEA cwWl- »aAVI4JU* ..JS eiiiafl 






s..pond.„t. i 2901.4.606" 


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) h new trial, 
after a jury had returned a verdiot 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 
eaat 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 
aooldent, her general condition of health, eyesight and hearing were i 
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 east 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 that each lane la 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 oar going west, and 
at that time the oar she was driving was about seven feet from the 
south curb of the street; th-^t the left front of defendant's car struck 
plaintiff's oar on the left front and rear side; that just before the 

tfli^-y- i , . :H8 


T A O O { ♦t«»*trecrBaF 

t) A -t. 

•ooo^a^ Toi 

SilT .iJ-nffMftlsi) -^cf de9w n'sviifjb 9licro«so*tr.!s ns iine ItiJniisXq ycf tee© 
"io Jee* ©ofl.ffJBli; j^orie b 4^o«t*6 aoai£)JbA no issixwooo &a9bioo& 

•4>E€i «MeS mwl, to nooi3T:»tl« 9ri* 

eriS' o* soiiq >^f?0'* jos'n^ arft &tf el x^f^o^-'^^*'®* s'llriitaisX'Tl 

•i:©'!? gaixesri .5fl« *rfSi»9Y© ,ilifXjF9xf lo aolttbaao Xsaenss tsrf , to 6l;i 00.9 

, oilX^s-s* qbIb f ,->tflefflXXs oil -bsif «ie i^.p.riJ fine ^jfoclisq 

»fl§^9VB«I to *©8w siooXcf es*£rf;f Jje/ocIb fn^ittt Jaew iJn« #8bo as 4*©9n:#£f 

^uso •rail to ©b/e jsa.sri ^rigli eri* ^tQS'xt'C ao&tbbA ao saoXjs avoiJb d^« 

rfcC ;*©eir*E srfd- lo <iru& dttsos aiU aoit ^©st asvse ao xie *j;;oor.8 saw 

juodm St 9njsl Aob9 txdt bag ^Y^wrigiif Basl luot b si Jsartd-S ao8i£)i)A 

Yitasw* TO nee^rigl© lo Loeqe r jfs -galrlrb sbw trie a^ad^ jsMvy Jaat ae* 

ftfiJB t*a9w gajtos rr.o e^ta^bn-^^^b x^ aiowtrta «£» ©da aarfw ,iifOii afi aaXXa 

9dt tBOXl *e>9l: noves -.'sw •gairlt.b esw exfo t.«o erit msii t^dt *jb 

3in:*8 Tso s'to-ebaatal) lo tfaoxl «eX e< {^esttB ©ri* lo cfxi/o riJx/oo 

9di eiolatf Jairj; i-rd* ;©£)J:e ^^^i fcn.K tfaoTl d-laX arf* ao tbo 8»ll:i*ai«Xq 


impact, plaintiff tried to turn her oar to the right, and that 
defendant struck her a terrific impact; that as a result of the 
impwct, plaintiff fell forward and hit her head on the steering wheel, 
bvimped her left knee, arm and shoulder and fell back, and th^t she 
did not remember whether she :0ot out of the ear herself, or whether 
she was assisted by someone else; that she stayed at the scene of 
the accident until her husband came ?»nd took lier away from there in 
an automobile to the office of Dr. Vaughsn, 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 th?t 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 painf\il; 
that after she was brought home, there was profuse bleeding and 
blood clots, and thpt she was diz^y, nauseated and disturbed; that 
the doctor gave her sedatives; that she |ept bleediiig and menstruating 
for four months, that It was quite profuse BJid hemraorrhage-like, 
very red in color and quite painful; that blood clots eaae 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 ?t 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 ma,de a vaginal 
examination sometime in October, when the bleeding subsided, and that 
during all th?>t period, while bleeding continued and after it stopped, 
she had terrific pains in her back; th?t she had frequency of 

^Iseifw gfllttsaJa 9dt ao iJ..-Sii isii ;^^£f Jbae l>xs'ar^o1: list lliJnljsXq t^OBqasi 

9dB &Mt i>r, ( ' 't IsnjR tsbluoxfa lies arrR ^©©ni iJ.9l T9ri Jboqiaurf 

; cfS'Sxfw TO t,'ii">isrp'n -x .o arfj to *«© si^O^: »ris xSifJerfw xscf«»ia9T *oa bib 

fli ©Y^dd- aioi'it •^;BWi« n»^ :Soo* ba^ «ffi^.o i)iK ^cfRwrf tad Jtitny ta^bloos erf# 
j#»i9?f ^fx^l SalTTtl COXS ,«ts^u.s¥ ••rG ^o »©Jt1!to *tf* o* 9XicfoffiO*MJ!» n« 
j«iH.?so barsdBud x«rf ©"EO^tacf e?--* *i; saol 'wori ■t®cfB5«ffl©T i-on feil> axie t/sifd- 

10 "^ab •x^d;^c .35.60 fl©rf* 9.ef i^Rrf^ fefljft S3f 997 'oir#''f slit »il* ^atiub 

ilif# dtdltstf IXM ft fefl.e ricR9t » &»lii:i:«'M asatf fisnf Sifs #<s£{t jX^ato/x tojB 
jl^lfliBq rf^on o-xsT^ etKjXT^q TSfl ,>flsM!?©.s siS* sxotfwf Jed*- Ijhjs ^jfae^BiooB 

^cnfj ibBA-xjjtetb btts bfiiSitttttfm ^x^skb Bm ndB tni-t ba^ ,«.t6X» boold 

■^ItswiHti&tA baa gcifcasXcT fq*^ ftrfe jfMJ ja9vlt«l>98 iftri svsig ^«#oofc ©rfd- 

,63rXX-9siBrittODaffieiI bOF-^ ©eulortq »*ixjp bsw tl tnA^ ^sAiraQm xu&T: Ittt 

Xirev9 ©Kjso a^oXo fcooXcf Jpijif* jXwlfiJjsq tttkifp bB«^ 'xaXo© ill i)«a x^nr 

amoe XlJntr aiax/t jbotI: b^uatfrtoQ sflX68i»Xd ©ris- *r»ri* X>fl.8 juarf*' bnn won 

^X^cXwS')!: effioxf &g I9d »»» ot »Bajo loSoob *rf^ teilf j-racrotoO ni wsli 

9£ftj rtaJ^tj? ftoitlo bXH ts mJtrf Jbs^ieiv srie Istrf* JbJiis «a3fe«w &»xAt Tol 

■lorf'ooi) »tf* 98 0* besjaitnoo srf* teif* bus ,*juocfA *as' ^if' •tf-«># tXcfs &:«ir 

I'^niTirT B »Jb«ai xo*oob %rf* *j!m(# jaSGX ,TX3*^«et Xl»aif tmXt tetf* QOitia 

,^^jfP •".ni&saXtf 9At''ttBA9i ^mdHaibO ai ©ciitfswos nciJjaitiim.ixa 

^h9qqoii bftwfll *fi60 anJtJbaaXcf ©Xliftr ^fcoi'isq *-^if# XXfl a«lti/i) 


urination and always felt distended, th-t the pain in lier 'bROk 
was in the ooeoyx region, and that "before the accident, she did not 
have frequent urination; that she found it necessary to urinate 
several times an hour, and that 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, th'jt she had 
pain when she menstruated, and still had pain in lep lower region. 
The following question was asked the witness: "With what frequency 
did your periods oocu* before the accident?" The witness then 
testified as follows: "About every four weeks. Sinoe the accident 
the interval that elapses is from about three to five weeks* Before 
the accident, I did ay 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 miscellaneous duties of a housewife, making 
beds and things like that. After ay accident, while I was disabled, 
I did not continue to do this work. My mother and sister stayed 
with men • • * My mother would make the beds for rae, we would 
straighten up the bed clothes, and I had ice packs. They filled io« 
bags. 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 euid 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. Vfhen 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 as I know, I 
have never had any trouble with my female organs. About 1938 or 1937, 
I am not sure, I had an appendicitis operation. Have not been 
operated on for anything since th^.t time. Was hospitalized about 
eighteen days in the Belmont Hospital in connection with that operation. 

j-aii bib S4S ^ia^MoOM »ri* »aol;©cf i&Ai baz ,«ois»* xxoooo axl* nl 8*w 

{?©ifli;J ©vit TO tuQt mj i9-^ ot .fe.Rri aiiii led* iE>iXR ^xtforf SB eeasi* X^isvea 

qw if^a 0* ©vail t^a bib «fl« ,ia9Jbjtoo« ajfc^ nioltKi i&tii bm. ^^d^ta jb 

bM 9ffa d^M* ^ai-oi^eq iBjtn^^siiSffl r&ltr^ai'ixl bsA 9tia iBdt \td^ia ts 

YOrfatfpsTt tjsiiw tfJiW :8iBeH*4:?f Sri* b9:d.»& mm aoit&^ttp ^iwoXIol adT 

flsdi- aesfl(fis ©iiT "f Sii^JbJtoos »£j* O'solstf «tfOOo s&olxsq tuax bib 

&nBbtiiO'> ®{ii dofli® .»i:«3w Ttro'i ■^©vs ifxrodA" ;ewoXXcl bb Jbeilli-asj 

.jjiss'T s :?!Oil 0^ «©8q.eX» isiit l»yx»ial erijf 

£.«& Jbai. * ;aia8Bw xa-n ol •J:*sxblb I ♦ijd ^sciiqqoile flwo ^« fiiQ 

S^Xi^ffl «d1:i^@&uo£E £ lo saXiful) a(i08a.«XX@oeiiK dxfsh XX^ l)i£> JbciJfi £>0i^8Jj.& 

4Jb9Xf:^jS8i& Q/^ I 9X14« ,*;x9i)loo« v« «»*W ♦*34i^ ©aCiX ajgajtri* !>«« 8*»tf 

l)9^Bj'»,,<sM"sia *>«» T^Atom %^ .iaQw 8X4;i ol) ot 9aaltao9 *o« JbiJiJ I 

©ci i:>9XXll.f«£{T *igf|i4Wi ««J! Jf>«xi I Aixs ,a»rf*oXa l>*cr ail* qu aa^iigiAai-a 

»&sri ni as o# »«^# .«>rif«^AjaEe, flf* tol; |il«'*® V^ •^8* fiXacw Y*J£iT i^a'^Aicr 

"^M ,s'o>?.cf ypR t?i bRR wq41» w oi has 9911^ ^m ia gjad &0I ns besi I 

.&oe;i .6 $ol aeuo4 »£l^ £>a0et;s as qia<l Ot^ J!)3xrni;i'aoo Tmiisie baa ^ailitoiii 

da'l^d^s ^«;^aia "^ t£.Ai t^itA i,ta»bJLOQ£ J^tit x^tts IX&d b has iS^-noai 

...ii-tv^ I ,8Xj8ir«e*fljt tB a9rii bas i&ti^ is usia's^sn ®*x»w x®^IT «a«i rfJiw 

/.i:ap - • ISO -•3^t.oe I stP0t,*efl«ci I fl*ilW ,«old-.8xt2'ijy to ^sn9upoT«t ar^ri 

-fl »r«B . 'xol awofc x-'sX 0* iaXXaqifioo jeA •atssq :> 

X ^wcrxii I sr. is: : ^. ■■£!>■ eirt^f ©lOlaS ♦as^filT^xoeiaj lo naaiiXixlo ofl 

jVSeX 10 8seX ;fxfocfA •aas^igi:© aX«»ol W dii-.f ^Itiucrt xas b&tl ie>r(iii »vBCi 

aaed ioa sv-H .«oi:*=5ri:©qo laii-ioxfcaaqqjs as fcfixi I tSi-'/e toa ssui I 

iitodt JbaslX^siiqaoil bsM ♦?»ffii:* dsxfi^ ftonia sfiMJTxns 10I no i>a*.Ba©qo 

!ioi*i5TE9qo *«rfd- d*lw noitoanxioo njt Xs*iqeoH iJaomX*:. •; SY^i) xxsaWaXo 


The other oar, as it was oomlng over toward my car, was going quite 
fast, about forty miles an hour. At the time of the crash, it was 
still going fast* My car slowed down to about five miles an hovxr 
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 
feet west of the truck, at the time of the impact." On cross- 
examination plaintiff testified to the effect that Addison Street at 
the point in question is a residential district, and th«it at the 
point of the collision, there were three o?rs parked on the north 
side of the street near the east end of the block, and that a Hallway 
£xp£C88 truck was parked on the south side of the street near the 
southwest corner of Addison Street and LaVergne Avenue; that the 
accident happened about 50 feet west of this truck, and that one of 
the oars parked on the north side was directly opposite this truck, 
and that there were no o-rs e^st of the truck on the south side of 
the street. She further stated that all of the oars 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 streetsj that 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 w!^s 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 ri^t, and that when defendant was about 50 feet from plaintiff, 
he swerved and struck her oar; 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 effect 
that when defendant hit her oar, defendant's car was headed southwest, 
and that plaintiff's oar was about 4 or 5 feet south of the center 

E5W jfi (dBF-JS 9X?:.-f 3tO *eii:i < us 8»Xiffi Y^'IOi tlJOdB ^tB^Ti 

&tli to jss' 't *MOcte Efiw I •lb©Tix/oso iosc: .x3di bae 

it^ *9»^#6 wosII'j: ao' ou i)*?^^!;)*** t^tiJnieiq aoiif«ai:a«x9 

9riJ T:c9n ;^9 9T:i-E "»ri* to oJbis d:ti/06 srfrf^ flo Asafxsq t«w alout* ■••Sqx^ 

'••■'•' tp-xi* j»uix»vi; ©rigT^V.BiI bflB *s«T*8 aosibtA to rearoo isBvtituoa 

1,, ..w J-.3ri* bns tJfOirt* alrf* to *8»w t»9J. 06 JimcfB tawaqqajtl d-««l)iooB 

jioint* airf* 9*i8oq:qo Y-C*o®^-iJb sfiw 9f)i8 rfjTon -ri:'- a-.) 'v^/r ^-- axeo »rf# 

1:0 »t'ls Htuoa ^nf xro ^l^mt-f srf* to :f8e» f; ■ -5X1* bits 

BJSW iojrt;? Oil* '?'i3r :ri.t lo i-RS^.? ©i®w *9©'xts 3if* to •biB dtroa 

tuoiis BBw noieilloa lo *fliOQ «fS* *«(rf* JbflB ,8Jt»i8 £{^U08 9il* no fcaiisq 

lo ©fiili- 9ri* )l^« #«iit jet»9«t8 ow* s. «aw *«sl ST 

^xuoA VLM eelifls OS o* 8Jt itrdds aatlsvjsi:* esw llltalaXq ^aoielXIoo »rf* 

-Meleb Jsild- jllx^ni a« ••i«# sfllog 8«w *flBfi««»lsl) isdi ban 

lli*nl?«IcT ,»«ii# ;t.i?rf;t *f? :f!?iiJ Jons ^tso ©•lli^aljslq ®£f* airswot 'lavo Si/e 

o* ntjft o* bstri J'it.iat'^lq t.Rdf ;*99rt*E &dt lo '••Jbl8 >3b" xio levo as^ 

^JttialRiq moTl ;^»©1 05 #«otfa •i?^ tnaMslsfc aerfw &»dt £«je t^xtaii 9xff 

Jb«rf lli*ci.cXq 9d-i ,*EBi^ j«rf* *b tsdt 41BO t£®rf aloincrfe Jbfljs Jbevxftwe ©rf 

lo i©m:oo arit *« ftcotf'e rioiilw Soinc* ftrf* esjeq oJ *«o Jben-xw* *ofl 

Joell© «ri* o^ .&9Xli#8©* Brie ,9niaBrk sff^isVjsJ fina tssTJG no8ii)JbA 

^iB&Tdtvoo bBbRBd 8fiw 1J80 8»*flBl)a9l9t> t^«o ^©Jtl *-*^ JfljslMislofi nariw #«fi* 


line of the street when it finally stopped. 

From the testimony of several witnesses, both for plain- 
tiff and defendant, it is shown that both oars were considerably south 
of the center line of the street after the accident, and at a point 
approsimately 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. Orufke, a witness for plaintiff, testified that 
at the time of the accident, he was in a tavern, three doors west 
of LaVergne Avenue and on the south side of Addison Street; that 
while he was in the tavern, he heard a crash and came out and aaw 
both of the cars involved in the accident; that the west bound oar 
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 

Oasimir 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 that at that time, 
three quarters of the westbound oar was in the east lane; that the 
eastbound car was traveling about 20 miles an hour, and that the west- 
bound oar was proceeding at about 40 miles an hour, and that he saw 
them come together; that when he first saw the westbound oar, 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, Bnd that the left side cf both cars came together; that he 
gave his name to the husband of the woman who was driving the east- 
bound car. On oross-exsininatlon he testified that at the time of 
the accident, plaintiff was in about the center of "her half" of 
the street; thot the oar was a Ford, and that it was about 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 


risf-tfoe ^■JC<^'*'^'«'**>J'«^oo '^ssw «XE« rt*od !l'«*I* aijyofil® , -n-is&n&l-al) hax--. Tzt:i 

s^fljtoc & *iis fiiaa «3"a6,&l30« 9d?f xs^l^e i^3ni@ Ads' Jo anil isdrfso «»ri* ^to 

vfifi !>«?. itw© «»ffi#o Jb«» :de.f5^o « iJijsdri »r: ^iSTST^^tf srft ai ftfsr ftd ftlJtfiw 
*!^d^ baa ,*8®wji*ao8 xXifxlsile s«l;>®!t «»a«i b£wo(S t»9& ©rf* ei crsvo ax^w 


eqxfoo ILe£>8 8 srf j^rijt ©its »ft©08 »fl'd- t'&a spw ari j^j'aetloojst »rit lo 

,e«ii^ *Bd^ *f? d'.Ri:?* baB t^ts'sm -galog aat^n tr^xBl a tm» *a,P9 gaiog 

9ri* iBdt jsnsX *9S© 9d* ax sjrw ijiso l>«^od*8»'?!f s>rf# 'io »x9*Tisttp saicif* 

d-i 4T,80 jbnuocf^ssw oiitf w,ee ifsiil erf aejiw t«if# ■|'•sorf!^93o:f ©koo mad* 

od 4^9riJ jTSxiJ-©;^* 8«?io e:coo fI:focf 1o sJbia #t«I »sii tjidt bos ^lituoe 
-*8.C58 &At -i^aivXib ««w o/lw a^atow 9dS to Jbaecfewxl arf* o;f 9»sr Bid ovsa 

>o "'tifiifj T9if" Ito T©tii©o »rfj tuods al Bjsw llid'cislQ ,|-|i$sbi:f»os #rft 

- :» ., ^Twocfi' B.SW it i^dt boB ^bro'^ J9 »j8w tjso ©di' t-^rf* j*©®x#i6 9dt 

sr.w ftrf tSiaZcf tsAi tB icdit b9ts:ie r&d&tvt esftirtlw eitfT »9£)iv #«»t 

3£''i? 9d tsdt bae inobaiv} ©ri* dUjc/ortd* ;fjjo sfii:^ooI nievs* ad* at ^^atbaaia 


in a position to and did see all that occurred. 

Defendant testified that he was a student at the 
Northwestern University, and th-^t he had driven an automobile for a 
year he fore the aceident; that as he approached LaVergaa Avenue 
going west on Addison Street, he was traveling at a speed of about 
35 miles an hour and on the right side of the street, neex the 
center; that just after he passed the west line of LsVergne Avenue, 
plaintiff's car pulled out around a large ttiuok standing nep-r the 
corner of the street, that he wee unatole to see hex oar coming because 
it must have been close to the curb, and that the plaintiff < a (Sar 
collided with his oar; thpt 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 oar 
hit defendant's oar 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 
oar 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 attentios 
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 ro^^d; 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, and about 1 or 3 feet from 
the curb; that when the plaintiff was 3 or 3 feet west of the truck, 
and the right side of her car was about a foot from the curb, she 
suddenly txixned toward the left, and that her oar was then going about 
35 miles an houz« 


^b&xtuooo ^•jSiJ^ lia 0(^ii hJLb l»c.s oi rtol^isoq s ni 

tu&dB l0 Jfe»«q8 .« dra S"^-^®^*^*^ *'^ ®^ »#99i#2 a««iJbfcA no tasw snio^ 

,sn»n©r& »fl;^T©Vp4 1:o *AsJtl Jeaw ail* £>»ea,eq arf is^'Ss teul tf^At ji9*fl»o 

9>6ife.o<^d grxiHioo xjbo i^ii »ae o# •IdBay e^w srf ^i^-.dJ- ,S-9»rt*3 srf* lo r*aTi90 
tm^ 8ltlx^nl«XQ[ 94if itjsil^ bas «cfxi/o srlit o«f »eoIo a&sd evzci jsi/m ^1 
£>i{£ i^sQ^o^e ta& B»3LnT(i Qfii t&llqqs 9cf &Kdt \rmtt Bia AtJtm h%btll90 

B*tanbaf>Y9b ban ^te^iiB srf* lo sisjta riit^on srii- no tpo &«3-n»Jbfl9l»|> jfl^I 

t^ssxiTe 9a* ^o asJaeo afiftf- i- ;o e'lli^aifiXq ,x9to XIji law tt i&tls 

isdtott^ bauo's^ avtcsira o^ ^qwei-iff; Jo/i Jbib sjti &sit liesediroa galoisl 

crrigiss'^p »lxi *sri;f jSimsTA ftixg-j^VBiJ of »©<sIo ^urestcte iioei;l>feA ^aoXs XX« 

&d Etefisf d^«fl# il)?OTc 9di avob id^istist giJislooX esw &d t&dt basi ^boo'^ esw 

JbisB «3fot/T* etid- 3Bi83floXs er^w acirfo.eBi aid »iDlri io *«ot^ ai ibo 9ci& w^e 

«XJ:doaio(r«j5 e*S"3tld-aij5Xq ^jrrii^ JSXieX d-sal OX txjod'je saw ^foiri* axii^ Jjsxl* 

moil i^Bl R TO X tuod^ to.-', t^ioint »dt to *88w d-asl T to 9 tarodM a^v 

t^ioi/Tt «ri* to d-ssw S89l ajew "I'^itfllsXcj ©if* flsrf^; -..tuo erf* 

•ffe ^cTtju-o »fl* fflo-sl ijoo'i s tno^js ©iJie &d^ir ttdt baa 

iuodm aflJtoa a»di «sw T",o T»ri cfsifit bais ^ileS. adt brcsvoi bt>arsj:i -^XiidliJbwB 


Esther dinger, a witness for defendant, testified that 
she was in the oar with defendant at the time of the accident; that 
a truck wss parked on the south side of Addison Street, ahout three 
doors away from the corner, and th?t the caj in which she was riding 
twas on the right side of the street; that she saw a little oar come 
out and swerve out in the center of the street towards defendant's 
oar, arai 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 oar, and that they were thrown out of the 
seat, and that after the accident, she saw plaintiff rxiniing around 
getting names and addresses* 

Oelia Tucker, the mother of the defendant, testified that 
she was riding in the automobile driven by defendant at the time of 
tne 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 35 or 30 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 veet of the truck when I first 
saw it [meaning plaintiff's car]. All I know is it hit us on the 
left side, Vfhen I first saw the automobile west of the truck it vvas 
Just about a couple of feet away. At th^t time our car w?s 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, 
fe had got just about the middle of the block, that is, when I first 
saw this other automobile coming, when it hit us," 

Or, Perry Vaughn, a graduate of the University of Illinois 
and a licensed physician, testified as to his hospital experience, 
and that he had been practicing his profession since 1930. 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 (£ the shoulder joint. 


^jti.!or'- -yah •ltd' wise a>rf8 Isri* i'i«o s' J-nsfcHSlfti) il& ban ,«»» 

gni.- '' astefc«9T'? .eTU r .bas aria 'i&dir \Atiurt ^At balii94 ffioil 

©rf;f lo *'JO flwotlfJ^ »i9w \j®iil* tBd'i ha.?, ^t-ro srirf- lo ^.aea ^ ^dt al 

lo ®i»i.t »rf,t Y^ flsviife !»Xicfom©i'yR «£lt ttl ■^tblt Bsm 9xl« 

9rf* ftnlriscf »ot1: aauso tro s'lliJni"!' '^':t ;Tcuorf fl« eslim OS rro SS lo 

«Jf)9#,R:Ms aria ^noiJjBiiiiaPsrr.- s^f;TD . a' JastflalaJb Jiri bna iossri 

tBxn I florfw ^OuTj 3ff* "^v ..'1 IXoa- t^nblueo I« t«if;f 

erfd- no si/ Jx . . "•'?''!ti*n:i«Iq gnlxiBefli] jM wbb 

s: , ;!i :iout& Sff* t©''>««w ^Xitfoe'Oif . jsail: I asd^ »9iil8 *1t©X 

©ffS- (TO e«W ti?0 XrjO 9(Ki* ;J •'£*:* ■ \. •VP*-'-' t99l lo 9Xqx;0O S tL'OiiB tnsJl 

4f&&fixH 9tii to §hi«t 'tA'^.it •xf* ho 91 .'XJ30 isxld-o oif^ wjea ^^a^jtl 

iaitt I narfw ^ei ^=!nd- ,3JooXci LbfcljK oxf* tyocfs Jau/t J03 bJBd •W 

''*Qif tir .ft flSfwr tgnlBsoo 9XicfOflso;)'tfB -fBrf^o BirlJ wae 
eiOislXXI lo x*j(:«iftvinU ©clef lo ©^tsw^Bi;! a «flilsi;BV yrcT 

4eofloii9q-x9 XnaHqeoil sir '9i?:i*B0* titBioJtexriq b^sa&oiL & hae^ 

.OSQX oofljta floiasaloiq sirl anioiJOBiiQ fl©9cf Jbsil %A. tsd^ ba£ 

iBiii biii-, ttnsMoos 9dt xftitM ttt&aiBlq ©rf* isnliaaxs* ©rf tjsdd- JE)9*.r*8 

tsbnx; T.»d fc»fljtffi.8X» ©M Jext* ;^90crX9 *rfsii o^** ^o noiairi-noo s fisri axfa 

.Jfsioj; rtafcXuorfe ©il* Id aoitetBq^B « aaw exad* *sri* bne 9qoo%or!jn erf* 

aoromial-olavioular joint, and r contusion in the region of iier 
lumb^.r vrtrtebra, ©t the lower region of the spine, and a large 
swelling, a large hematoma, an acoumulation 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 thrt 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 th^t 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; thpt 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 tre?ted the wounds which could be treated 
best by rest and applications before mentioned; that she was afinstrtt- 
ating all the time, but thot it wasn't a normal menstruation, 
because 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 that she oajne to his office and that he 
gave her a diathernqr 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 hex at his office about two or 
three times a week, and that following that, he had her report te 
him about once a 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 thpt he first 
made a vaginal examination about two months after the accident, 
and 8tf!ted that his examination revealed that she had a marked 
retroverted uterus, which means that the womb is tipped baok 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. 

a!»di 8<ew ade es ^©ttii* t^ri* *« floJtJffrtiiaRX© iaaiasiv « aisa *oa fclfc 

,oojtt^; t *d^x/oTcf afiw «ifs a©rf''S teiit ;*2xae«Txr ©tsw ifairfw 8ei:«/i;iii 

sfiiqa rsid 1o aot-g^t rmol Bdi ot •ai Y-t«iq« iwis £>»<! at xs#8 Jbajs ©mori 

8«e 94c ,8fIOl8-R00O ©e<5rf# flO ^Brflf im* t,Bi»«W OW* 4^JS;<J€f& lOl XBJb r9dto 

b9ts»ti »€f bXuo© floij^ 8i8>iW/ow Oii* £)9*.»»'i* ^awj; ad it^ttt bUB ,b«cf ni 

~jsfT+-r'"'" ff.v ®ii8 *«ri:* j^exxoiJaaic f>«li6cr eitoitf^oXXerqi' ibfls. ^ea-r Y<f ^a^x^ 

, 3i*««t*8«affi Xafijiofl B t^aB&w ti ^nrid- tud t&mit 9d.& XXa giilJe 

•x9ct jB TQii ib®&fiSi*c.o® 9ti i^At laottMuriiiasia l&m^&n suXifwA Txfooo 

&d tMdf btt& 8oi;1:lo sirf ct ofi««o sifa d'^rfS- Jjcb , sales* ssiidt ro OTii tm&d 

^flXiyJb tad* jweei? d-ilais o* xlz toI 6»qqjiu*B tj»rf* ^qest l>n.»5 ,T9AXwodB 

•£0 OW* *ifO<f.8 8©lt"l0 eM J8 Ta.ff T»!^8 »it 4«sri#XICt2 ©9Tlf* TO OW* !f8«X »if* 

at tarf 988 o* aoiajBOoo ^sri d^e di \iliB.Qm « aoiio tit&di& «M 

3'in ©ri J«rft .bslli^esjt- «M ♦flstff.t sofllo iisif xr^a* toa tmi art t«il* Aojs 

,3-fl©.biE>oje 9di %9ft9 9,dtaoa ow* tuodfi aai-i&tiismxQ XaalsRV jb afiam 

i>»:rft.BM B bj&d axte *J3rf* be£^9r9% etotlsxiiMBxe nirf itisirf* Jb©;J-?:i^8 ban 

Bdi- ao io:Rd bttcqtt 8i ofmow srii Jfirit anasm rioirfw «8«t9*i/ As^iSTorrJst 

floitisoq Isja-sorr ari^f #ii4# jaswJoM axfd^ £w« ©niqe erf* l:o rroit-rog lawoX 

BtfflsXa won il iedi ;«Xaiis awcaefi 8* n tuodB tM al ain:a*« 9di to 

o+f«»fio-,. ^ :. vci fifiri'rn,vr:ua &x ifi l>n.v BbTPwioe-cf tncxl ad* «Mn:l /\{XX«fl08«Xi) 


Thia witness further testified as to plaintiff's condition as he 
found it, and that "the body of the utexue, thia portion, that is 
in the abdominal cavity is tipped way backward onto the rectum and 
lying on the coccyx in a ret reverted uterus; in a normal uterus, 
the body is lying at an angle, like that* The approximate size of 
the uterus of a lady like this who has not had children is about 
that of a small pear. The uterus was tipped back on the ooooyx, 
because at that regiion the uterus takes a curve like that, and with 
a uterus that is tipped, is tipped right along in the curve of the 
coccyx. She probably would become pregnant, but would not carry lt« 
3he was not able to have a normal pregnancy and childbirth with the 
uterus in the position th?^t it was in that I found it» As I 
remember, I made three different vagina.l 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 tha.t 
comes from the part attached 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 
a 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 

Dr. Albert 0. Field, a witness for defendant, testified as 
to his medical experience and qualifications. t)onoerning the instant 
case, 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 ligaments 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 around and so on^ my opinion is that 
it would be impossible for bh injury such as that to cause any trouble 

eJt JM* ,iicii;*aoq Bi4* tOw'i^^J^ *4*. IP I^ocf 9il*« iBdt bap. ^^i LmrqX 

&«^ aixf^osi »d* oitflo fcii'wio^d Tj-aw h9qqX& 8x ^jItjbo X/JxtiiaoM^ erf* al 

^^tj'x^'S-ti laffiic jai/t9*u Aa^txevoiifss & at x^oooo arlS no Sji^ix-t 

"':o asis ei-^SBtlxoxc^H* »iiT %i&£ii »:itl ^slgfij? n?; i's iqs:U\1 at Xbodi «!Xi# 

^xroo'B Bi aaiJbXifio jE>«4 i^on eM oilw ai:r!# dj^il x^JIX s lo &uiBiu dxid" 

«x"^ocK)o ftrfa- HO sfo.^-cf ijsqQid- b.sw awrstfju a/lT »xsaq iX/yaa s to isAi 

iHlTi bD& ^isiAi »jkli fTXtfO B 8s:if&^ BUis^i/ 9rt* jaodssit isidi in aci/gsoocr 

3rf? lo 9TIW0 sxl# isi sxxoXe ^sigit b&qqii el ,.b9qqi^ ax tsdi tufXBiu & 

. i; Y'x^-BO ^<)'Q blsjov iud ttaBftgexq w&aoQd iduom x<^<^^<^oaq oxiS «XY0000 

,rfr^ fT.-;x" rfi-tutffcXldo iHiB -^/iJBns^tq Ifixcnoji R dVKi" ocT sXdB *o« BBW etfe 

*^i Jbii£rot I t^4;i- iii «j)fr ^i J- xaoq oxf;^ at uuxetss 

flOi^Xeoq xii 8l xllsBiXoa tuji»isj adX ♦nolitsjaiaiBX© ffo*® ao 9ei««r t^jf' au^w 

ijf.rfv,'- .tnemsall IwwaCf *sxi# t& qoi ao taBniB'j^tl bsuso'x. ^ ei ot'^sii baB 

n®xlw Jbas ^naaLS^lX Jbaoxtf eri* a^ioXs axurx ;^«di 4#«rid- ed-xoqqjjs atawXa 

aeoX ^8d# Jbns ijaxtotaxJe axs &ia^m\:^tl me^dt ^bQ&%BvoxiB% »i auxstu s 

9cf JbXuoxia 3-x YJ^'w ©rf^ qv easretu »tii biQsi i^a&a fen.© yj^Io-k^** xlad* 

*nanj3HJX8q A a'^ewXe eJt JE)©cflxoe9fc I jfj84* aoi;iti£)aoo »£fT «q;tf Majl 


as f^ailiJasa- ,*xf«Joa33:sJD xot aeouJitv e ,i)Xoii *u it'isaXA »xC 

:^«s*8xti erf* sninxaoxio'^ ,&raoilsolliX.Awp &a« soasixaqxs XsoiLwii, yxu o;^ 

8iS* o* ;^i/q aotiB&irj Xsoi*»rf*0<3:Yrf< •'S aa*soJ:£>fli TjAOiniJaaJ aXil tSaso 

:woXXol Ml acf o* tonxtatis aricf yd nwoxfa omi9AS i^wa-ffB arid" Imjb aaaxi^iw 

bttc ata»m.^t£ Ixmoa dttv Ismtoa xXb^aoqqya Xxis :&aifQ\ js jjalaoqqwe,*' 

iuul tiOi:- *e9rio xari fectB »Xicfoap^j«a oa at goiJ&lx e«w cfwow Xosiatofl « 

bsBtsjxd esw aria Jboa ,X«Mlrfw e4t *««l«a« "i" •voi'a a^w i^aaxlo xari woXacf 

iBiii Bt aotair:c vm ^ao oa baa btuj<$x» b%;i£»v has ^tuo *oa Y-CX«nil bas 

alcfjjox* t«« 96^ ^!^ 8J8 douB x«tftni .X<3fJlBeoqm4;.jltf AXuow *i 


with the uterus, say any displacements whatsoever. In a young girl 
that is healthy and he a no children, there is no reason why the 
ligaments shovild bot he strong. In childbirth we know that the 
uterus gets larger and smaller and that tends to stretoh the ligafflents« 
But in a young lady her ligaments are tender. They hsve some 
elasticity, and if she has an injury to her chest, the chest fflusclea 
are supported by the diaphragm, so thet it would be impossible if 
she w?s injured to cpuae any baokward displacement of the uterus, 
because the uterus wouldn't be affected in th')t way because there 
was no ex^ra stress or strain placed on the diaphragm. Sometimes 
we have a congenital displacement of the uterus. Thet mesne where 
the uterus is placed forward or backward as to shape or ordinarily 
out of any deviation from normal. It oomes 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 a fall or jump from a high ladder, 
and landing on her feet, which would displace the uterus backward 
and forwsjrd. 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 moat of his time in exajalning the injured and 
taking care of them, and th-'t he was paid for testifying in the 
instant case« 

At the olose of plaintiff's evidence, and at the olose 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 Tiriiioh it is charged th-?t the 
verdict is against the weight of the evidence and the law, that the 
weight of the evidence is in favor of defendant, th- t the court 


©rf* ;f«?rf# wcni *w /f#TlCffcIirio nl agnotJa •<f^jN»tf Jbluorfa fetfloaegiX 

WHO© 9v.!?rf x®riT ,t©i>09* 31^. stamas-^tl TSrf ^fojsl "^axroY « ai iuQ 

It aldieeoqai M JbXwoi* cM f?/<:* 08 ^ja-^JBxcfq^il) Sil* ycf l)9*T0aqifR axs 

,atfX9*w ©riJ^ lo Jjiemso^Xtjeiil) Ms^rtosd t«« ejswo orf iia-mtni u/>^ erfe 

atsii^ d8xrfi0d<f fsi"' iM&t al fia^oet^ '/iJbXwow 8irx9*« 9di ssjjfsoecf 

s!!»mi:t»mo@ *n3J!Xjfci.<ili) 's<f* iio i^90i>j;:; uis-xts to eesxd'e ax^xe oxt aJv 

«x3rf?r snftssjs .trrfT .ejo'xe*!/ 9ff* to d-nsmsoaiXqeil) X.B^iflft'g/ioo s svsxf ftw 

■XlltBa^brc %o ©qflffe o^ s'^ JbT!-\tafo«(3f xo lix^wxol fcaoj^Xq- 8i aMX9d*w srf* 

9itf# o* eA .ri;^xio' Moxt esiBoo *I .Xeicxofl noxlL aoltjRlrQb xn* lo Jwo 

to noiJifcaoo ©if# ,x;MXicfi3;?lxxl 9ti* ©<f bLifo^ itexil: srft tX^ififEs^iroo 
d:*sin&xifB ba& *j%iaw ©eoX o* x«il ©eirao JbXxro*' Tudjf ^Iswi^lvUbni ©dt 
rn^dt #©1 JbXiiOw iloirfvi 8tflt©ai«aiX qH^ ac tosl'i© ©raff bLuoir dotdit 

^19hbMX dgill JB SJOXt qiB»^ xo XXirt Jfl ©Cf l)X£fOW ©Cl/SO t9Xl*0M »X«X9X 

fiiXBwiORtf «i/x8*w ©ri* ©o^XqaiJiJ feXnow doMv ,;^©9t xad no s^Jitnril Jbw« 

^i^js/!* oJb od- ^rraajiGgiX ©if* xfo*®xJe o# ©v^il JbXi/ow xfoY •bxewxot fees 

baS-sjJ-a ©rf noi*.iflifflfix©-3©ox© aO *\ii tu&Aitv^ i± ItfMA t*nh£suG(0 juwt 

baa fcexx/jni arf* gniniiaBx© ai »mlt aid lo tioas d-naqa Jb^ ©rf tRif* 

s£fd- til sttl-^tte^t xot Bleq bjsw arf *«if# bila <jfiaff;t "io sx/^o ^jixliB* 

•sar^o ;fai3d'eaX 

^o 5eoXo arf* *,s RaB ^©oKafciv© 8»ltl*fliisX«t lo ©eoXo ©xld- *A 

Oii* *ftrf^ ,*/xjciJbn9l:!9l) Y<tf »fc.«ffl ©xsw anolJom teumj ©xf* ,90a©f>lV9 art? i,i.2 

rftoH ,Y*-t-ijys i*"o« ^0 toifcxev jt? flxi/#f>x o* x^i/t »rf* ^os>xi!) ^Txxjoo 

fl(»tf'*ixw r, ttolJbxav ©ri# lo ffXjtfd'ex sxif* x©*lA #fi©ln©i5 ©tst^ acoltoin 

srit *fixf# J&©sx8rfo tfi *1 rfolrfff fli ,©feaB acw XeXx* w©xt b xol noi*o» 

'^'^r* ;+6iI* ,ifBX ed* exifi ©onaMvs erf* lo #ffsi9w ©d* tanii^a* ai *oifex9v 

ixuoo 9ff* d-^-'d* ,*nj?*fi?!)l©i) Id xovsl at et ©Oflsbiv© sd* lo id-glB^ 


admitted improper testiaiony and refused to admit proper testimony, 
and further, that the plaintiff h^^d made demonstrations before the 
jury which were prejudicial to the defendant. This last charge is 
supported hy s, series of affidavits, and in them it is alleged that 
in the presence of the jury, plaintiff had simulated a quivering 
of her body at various times during the trial, for the purpose of 
influencing the jury. After the affidavits 7?ere submitted to the 
court, the court made the following finding: 

"The Oourt did not find, nor does it express any opinion 
as to whether the plaintiff wps or wag not wilfully simulating 
or intentionally shaking and trembling in the courtroom during 
the trial of the case, and the Oourt does state th-t during 
the trial and while on the witness stpnd, Elizabeth Norton, the 
plaintiff, appe-red to be nervous and trembled while she was 
being cross-examined by counsel for the defendant; and 

"The Oourt, having he-^rd the arguments of counsel for both 
of the parties hereto, decided to allow the said motion of the 
defendant for a new trial, as there was no way to determine the 
extent to which the minds of the jury may have been infly,enoed 
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 wag excessive; if the tremors were 
beyond control of the plaintiff, the amount of the verdict might 
well have been I'^rger* 

"In the course of the argument for a new trial, the Oourt 
stated th?t counsel for the defendant in the course of the trial 
had called attention to the fact that the plaintiff wss shaking 
and trembling, and that thererjfter the court watched her, and 
saw thst she was shaking and trembling, s-nd th?t at the time 
th't the jury left the jury box to retire to consider of their 
verdict that the plaintiff was visibly shaking and apparently 
trembling; and was subseouently allowed to rest on a couch in 
the bailiff's room. 

"The Oourt 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 jury* 

William J, Lindsay, 

Judge of the Superior Oourt." 
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 


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, irreconoil- 


iX^omi^B9i vfqotq !fiai)»^ &t j&aaaste's baa Tp^Qmliwtt ntqoiqai bnttlmhe. 
edt ^Tolsd 8jaol*.fi*x*8fl«a»l5 »f>sa jb^sjcf tti^aJt^Iq; ftUt tstSi ^^x9dt1iIt bat'. 

?rf^ £»9^«II.« 3.t *i B'sif* fri; basi «8*iTstJS)il1:.e 16 eftiase s x<^ h&itoqqaB 
• #i ssofc «ofl ttoit toa bib imoXf edf* 

%M 4«0.t^TOl rf#"- 

tiW SXl.t flC 

SSv? 9li8 Sii 

> TOn Qd 0^ 

fcflr ; 

■ to; X ■■:■■■■' ' : " 

rf^fod tol: Issmxoo 

^ Qtii t: 

©xfif lo nojt^OR 

■'■ . 

Qri^ »aimieiBb ■ 


Jb«offei?."^-'-' ■■-' 

,>. .: .v: 


■ron ,11: i. 

Si^-ojr.rc.r f 

■, .'_ ,. -. - 

. .X *VnTl 



• ■■ -- ■■•;■'■ .. ■:■ 

' "^-i 'ftii. 

:id-^im d-oi&if 

« li^nijeXq s. 

IftiT* 6jrf>t to "^BTfoo 0rf* cX '.tiJ- "tot Isenxioo * 

3i3l::li3XlB 8C- ^Xq &ti^ ^i'.t o* iioXJ«s-td- 

Mi? »TSd : #twoG •■■ .r* ir-si& bile ,gi. 

ijXtoO'j.s^ircvB lias sflijif.Sil8 Y^'^'-f-'-^'' ' ■■ - . .^-.i»i'-^c ©rf* .*■■■' 
ffx ilci/oo B SO d'as'x o* J&8i(ToIX.e xJLia^urjfisclira zjsvi bn 

at tea to T«»ri*9iftif 1:'a;iiJ-fiXBXq lot l^Btwoo b^'iftv, d-TiroQ »rlT" 

sviiri JbXuow ^"^ /•-■/-' '^'^^ to d't;?^ -,-.:■ .<<,^;U iioi^- ■^r -'^^ (r- /,■;■:■,, 
£iB#Ej-s 3:1. roTc Ia&- t'^S'Xift 

90100 av.sii .....,.,..., ^. .?iluo.b.«i; . sa'^J Ai . ■_ 

JbXoil 0* JS)anlXo9£> ^-xwoo sridr j^-ff,t -~rjl:t>fflt sirf* gioat b^ioa »tf o* aX i"! 

9di t»di :fcf Bixl nX jraeJbflst aJb ^cf QMa B*nXoq tdT 

- ionooeaTi t3Xil^oiXlnoo > 9«*iw T3ri Mb llX*flX.«Xq lo xaojai*89* 


able and physically impossible, th'.>t tbe 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 ia wholly within the discretion of the trial 
court. The evidence adduced in the trial, the affidavits and the 
finding of the court, disclose no state of f^ots 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 that the jury was fully and fairly 
instructed, Brom the record before us, we condlude th?t there is 
nothing involved but questions of fact, that the verdiot is not 
contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, ajid we s,re, 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 verdiot, to-wit: |5,000, 



XaiT# 9rij- lo ttoit&vn>%ib 9di atAtixt xllodys &i Lsttt won s 8£tlJfl.«i3 

B*X9am/co t^li^ewj o* »^©,6l to 9iB&B oa aaoloeib ,*iJUOO srf* to ^atbalt 
^»BQ 9d**' #,^rf* si :titBlm9ld|3 -^ £)9y,5aTe *flioq xliiQ ©ilT »*«efliaa'8;f8 

wan e 3jHJ;*ae'5: rri a.»W d-^xKJ- &dt lo 

»000;«S| t^i^-o;*' ttoJtMsv 9ri* lo Jxxx/o/ax? 
000,81 fS&% fiCH SHSH G'- <i^l QUA a38H3Vafl flaQflO 


WILLIAM H. .HUBBARD, as Trustees 
Massacbvusetts Common Law Trtist, 

(Plaintiffs) Appellants, 



corporation, as Trustee under the 
Last ?*ill and Testament of Martin 
A« Ryerson, deceased, 

(Defendant) Appellee* 


290 I,A, 607 


TMs is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a judgment 

entered by the court for the defendant. Plaintiffs' action was 

based upon the amended statement of olaim, wherein it is alleged that 

on December 23, 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 23, 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, 1934. From the agreement itself, which is 

attached to the amended statement of claim, it appears - 

n * * * 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 olaim, 

further provides that on or before January 15, 1935, defendant was 

to pay the plaintiffs any sum received from such reletting during 

the period beginniixg February 1, 1934, and ending December 31, 1334, 




09 .A.I 0( 




<.-■: •■59096 ,iI08'3:9XH fcA 



*«9£Qgfci;£ s taott stittni^lq »df x<i i«*?q« ctB si sttit 

ntsii&o So fldi^8«R«oq ill ©rtsw B'xJ:ltntBLq 9At ^SSSX ^SS ladirasosa «o 

tCiorfilXI jOaflOirfO ^d-ss-tfa sitiafiA l^sreW S?5-Y85 •eoH «« nwonaf seeinsiq 

jXE 'X9cf«90*a -gnsbaQ ©8i?»X 'to Jasfacsises «,<? I'd su^rtiv ycT £«» TSJbntr 

Lruob miss JB «9on.p.vf)fi al ^jsq MJb lute ^-^tm 0*- Jb«»rts.e ellitnlsXq 9dt 

•^'■£Bl to ;^n&ma-gtsBs feieesTOli. srft Tftbniy Lkta^t e'ni3»Tf arri^na »il* o* 

^^atmist o& fissT^e JflBJbna'iQl) I^nB ,000,6X| \l9aiBa ,-^sex issx ©^^^^ '■lo^ 

ei rioirfw t^Xas^i d-nsaissti^js ®rf* mor^it »I>?:SX tXS' yt^um*:!. no ©sssX ©ff* 

- easaqqe *1 iinisXo lo d-asffis*^** i)®Jbn8ifi.s »dif o* b9dOBiis 

ai i&a£ibas\@b) tt^q ieifi f>r:t to xttBq 9tit iBdt * * * " 

Tol f>njs anoenaq rfot/e o^ i>ns Bmiajt- rioi/e - - • -^ jfaai dowe ro'i 
?>!ii lo Y^'^'sq oJ ©Xdseivba fceee V'Ses e.:~ to iioxTsq riOire 

*on XXjs?dB d-riq iern 8f{,t "io Yd-^i?q twcf ,.,.,,. ..^let) *XRq cfaiil 

sonsgiXlf) Y«^ 9ei:ort9x9 to Tsvsoscfsrlw tos xna ot ot b»','^^x ocf 

TO d-ncojyooo TsxlJcnp to gxiiTUjooiq arid- i-jjodi; to aX ^r^r^oetnciv! 

3ftXvi?.w Yd!5T5ri (g'i^i^nXpXq) #T/rq bnoo&t! »di lo yJ-Tsq td^ru^nsd- 

*T«q tsTil 9rU lo i:JT.eq ^cf ©onealiii) 1:o stji-o -^nB lo sew ©ri* 

•'• •^oeTSri^f 3flid-^6X9T Bdt at {;taBta&l6b) 

^mtsilo lo ^asmQirtis t&bnQsti£ eXrf* al bB-gslLs Bi il oe td-aftmasTas ©rfT 

B&m iaf>.M9l:9b ,a5GX tcX ^Tatrn-st, »T0l9cf to no tsrf* eefcivoTq n^Aiistl 

aniTuJb snl**«X9T xfoue asoTl 1>9v1soot muB yob elli^nlfiXq sri* Y«q o# 

,. f^.^iex ,15 T9cfjn»o90 gnxJbflS Jbna tl^SeX ,X Yi<'^*^d"9'5 anlnnigscf JboXicaq erf* 


after certain deductions and ooramisaiona to agents figured at a 
certain rate* 

It is further alleged in the amended statement of claim 
that on June 29, 1934, defendant relet said premises to a certain 
new tenant at a monthly reiatal 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 montji of September, 1934, until May 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 32, 

1933, plaintiffs were in possession of the premises as set forth 
in the amended statement of claim; that the agreement of December 
33, 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 33, 1933, was terminated on January 
31, 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 \inder 
the agreement of December 33, 1933, the defendant was under no duty 
to relet the aforesaid premises for the period beginning February 1, 

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 Januajry 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 JsjauarySl^ 1935. 

In support of the allegations of the amended statement of 
claim and affidavit of merits, the parties entered into a stipulation 
of facts, which wc.s the only evidence before the court, with the 


B tsi b9rssgi'i a*a»sj? o* Bnoiselausjoo has Baoiioub9b alBtx»o titts 

. ■ ' ■ t^O 

,99t% d-n«»T tSKSI tX ^J^ Xl#nt/ ,*5€X ,79cfBi®*q9S 'Jo 4taots edt 
t9l)n3r«« arid- o* »&ir9ei l:o &tv.-:bitis aJi fcsXit ^neiiaslai) sriT 

rid-ro^ Jee b.*? eselxcsTc; ©rf* It© flol«8»eaoq Hi &%mi Qt'iiialHiiq ^SSSX 
T9C!ffl909C. to *ii»ffi9«7se ®ri* Jeii* {fflisio lo ta9nx9iBiB b9ba9iSM 9tit ai 

^Yil&at&lq ©d* rioiifw leMfr aa^eX o£i^ itn^msat^^ Dise io ajuitiiv \dl 
Xt^uasl, ao ba&j&almf^t ssw ,g5ex »SS ssdaeoaG . no noieeaaaoq ai: 9t«v« 

eseljsas^q fciselo qirieasiitwo «il^ ^BSsJtBiai^q Wee o^ rro ai lovsopjjsxlw 

«l»seX ,Xi^^Y?fWft«t it®*tjs *ifisJbiW9'J9£) 

■tub on T.^hniJ ebw d'fl.^ilJfl^t^Jb »t!t ,8661,. ^8S Trscfsieosa to •iaom'aQ'x.^t Bdi 

elrf* nt b9:iiltt£>n st it ban ,>SSX ^IS i:»cf«9oeCi ^aXJDna buB »^sex 

^j. ^Bwnpt ^ianXs^d bolTsq b tot Baelinsnq bi«e 1:o Tfonisviwooo io ;*-«lsi^ 

•xf* lo floi*JBt»l)i8iToft fii ,«&i^ Jasi ,2SeX ^05 XiTqA s«ii>fl9 Jbrte ^SSeX 

flo l>»#«««^e acf feXjuow ae»nisu«f ett ts^dt ®9a8»X wsn srfit 1o ia9m99rgB 

,a£GX »|fe ^T-st/itBl, nBJtJ* x9iBl ton adBiajsxq bdaXtc^i) ©ri* 

lo i,!-xi3iud^ :\,-8 JbeJbnsffis srlif lo eaoi^JKSsXXA srf* lo d-toqqwa fli 

aolfBlmiXie jb o#fli iJsiGtna esltiijq ©ri* ,B*l^efP. to i'iv^JblltJS fcns mlBlo 

odd- rfd-Xw ,d"rjjoo 9ri* ©Totsd ©ojri»blv» xXfto ®dd- rioiriw ^^tosl to 


exception of the testimony of one witness. 

From the plep^dings and the stipulation of facts entered 
into by the parties, the aug of 119,000.00 was paid by the plaintiffs 
to the defendant under the agreement of Qeoember 33, 1933, entered 
into between the parties. This sum was equal to the agreed rental 
which the plaintiffs were required to pay for one year's ocoupanoy 
during the year 1934 of the premises in question. 

It further appears from the stipulation of facts submitted 
to the court that on December 23, 1932, the plaintiffs were in 
possession of the premises, as alleged in the amended statement of 
claim; that the agreement of December 32, 1933, attached to the 
amended statement of claim, was entered into between the parties; 
that on Jvme 39, 1934, defendant entered into a lease of said 
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 svim of 
^640«00 for the first month's rent being payable upon the execution 
of the lease and further payments beginning Jvme 1, 1935; that the 
lease provided that the lessee (the new tenant) should have the 
right of oecupanoy 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 new 
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 d\iring 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- 

bsis^fl© ad-0J8l lo aotiJtluqliB sri* JtoB agaiiseftXci arid- snotl 
ilititalslq Slit x<^ Itijsq tsv &0*000«6i^ lo |^ 9il;f ,89i;^x«q i^i xcf o^ni 

YOaJMjjJ»PO s 'ajE?»x ©flo xot ^»q o* .b»xiJJo9% sgtsw el^iS'iilsiq ant rfoxrfw 

fli aiew aitl^aiBlq «ii^ ,€SeX «S£ oradteeosG ao &Mt iTiaoo 9fi;t orf- 

JbiBe 'to »SAeX s t>tat Jberrs^ns */t«i>n®i©l> «J^SSX ^es QmjXt,ao tjsif* 

s^iR&v 9vl% lo bolt^ e xcJ ©«88&X 8£ &astt»t w«« JB d*Xw «08iai»ncq 

1« ffii^a add- «00»0*&| lo i£tn&t xXrii^-jnoBi a ^« ^esex »X ys^ g£ilfl«is»cf 

srf? #j?ff* ;35eX ,X sriurt. saimii'sdtf steaffiXBO: i:&diiut btta «6.F.aX drfd" 'to 

s>dt 9VBd bluoAs i^assts-i w»fi eii*) saaeeX sri* i-pil* fcafciiroiq a«.69X 

iitqk oi tdSGX ,X, fooit eseittd^ f>lJS8 lo x©fl-»C[J^»«>e 'io *rf8li 

itsais^t* tai?nsd- waa 9sit Iostsh'w coid-^i'ifcianoo ni ^as^l: ta&x ,35eX ^OS 

t35«j; tX. Y««ifll«X» X©*^JK 9Xcf,K»i* iiooe es B»eiffi9Tq sd* ^tfooo oi 

ft^SeX «M YXi'V *i;o<!F« %o «o *Bd* jSeeX iXS tx&sja&X, tiBsL^ t9*jsX *oa Ma 

' ;iwx«f' tl'SeX «G jRirgyA flo ©esiaiaiq 9ii* lo ^oaaqwooo ■^aita&i^ tasa9t 

jaaifeflsJxe J)k.?. x«^ *-ed* sflXflflisarf feoiT«q »d^ tcot XaixiST 'to jTijearT^q 

f)«jEqi/ooo *iiBce* w»fl wl* *(5ifJ ;0Bfl9X aaJtXas? ©ri* lo aaioHiaaef «xl* «# 

-9ie>di xXtt«oiiflJt*aoo f>«» ,*5ex ,X iQdctoO *woGf^ ^0 no aaaifflSTq 61j»e 

btsq tsjd ,*iuB ^iriiT at aoiit^&uQ ai 9mit lo iwl-rsq ariif 8XxXtx/6 isJl* 

afliJbiJO .bite ,^SeX ,T9clffl»*q98 afliimisscT bai-raq erf* xol tasr on 

»il* fo«elvb« ell i^flieXq ail* t^SeX »6 Jai/SwA nO ♦■frsex »«8rf«i»a«G 

-93fl«T:rr« 6«*^Xq«s*aoo 9di o* b© *o« fcd* ell i*KiBXq sri;^ r#^;f ;txu«iiJfl9l9A 


ments giving the new lessee possession of the premises for the 
months of September, Ootoher, Hovember and December, 1934, without 
paying reasonable and fair rental for use and oooupanoy. 

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 iierohandise Mart lease up to the time of its 
expiration, A motion was made to strike this testimony, on which, 
ruling was reserved by the court. 

The question 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 viestern Hosiery Company^ to vacate the premisea and the 
defendant to have possession for rental purposes. By this provision 
the defendant was permitted in its discretion 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 
advisable to the defendant* 

What does the word "rent" mean? In a popular sense and 
a sense in which persons have le?>rned 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 parties, 

Tfliile it is true that under the terms of the agreement 
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 

ttsotittyf tl'Sei ,tr*c?ffi*o»€! !«»» -xsdasev^K »t:9d©!f»0 ,'2®cf8;o*qaS lo arfd-xxoia 
.^snaqifooo Ms ©rc; lol IsifHST liijsl &«« »Icfj9iio«tB«T ^rrlyjeq 

®tf* Jbflj aseiiHOiccf *d;f ©jr^aev o(? ,,t««Q®o''' Y^eisofi aiajfssW ©if# jjftscs* 

blisip. 9Ut inl&t of aott&r^&lh &ti irl fe«if#itt«tdq Bmr &asfbn&l9h 9ri# 

iB®<se S-rislw »?» »Miif96- to Jbelrtsq rfex/e t<&1 ba.« enoe-xsq: rfeu* ot Jbtts 

«*flsl)ji©l»l) ©xf* <i# •Icf«eiwJ>e 

.ti <JfeTOW 9df JJiHAS-E'rafsmj o# l!>teff«;#»«X iwr«tf *H«re«»q rfolrfw iti eefsse b 

BBtbafidtn&is ^x^now. ai x^fit^Hn ^x^r9nx&tef lo saw ©rft aol *««Bt«iT enjpea 

tc©B«3>fti5i« 5/i* -^d ^©1 bibttrorq eX ' *"-■ feaxlt ;)-.6 ^eeolvitse rro 

aftciasTt? ©d* *©X o* y^wIj ofl Tafcitw ©jrw tanbaQt^b 9ri# flolS-esxrp Kl 
,XS 'isrfflioosC' -gntbas bUB ,J^Eex tX ■^•retnccf©^ gnianisocr fcoiiceq ©d* rtol 
noleeaeeoo ©i^i- o* t&ais©* w«« 9ii^ ttmi^q o* Jiaiowoqw© sow tt c^sex 

.loetsri* »«xj ©ffd- rot Itittt^r lo ^aaxBYsq ©diJ' iicqo e©»Xai©i«? »d* 1© 
©d;*' £il«q lilJtJnijsXq ©d* ^jsdd- xsbienoo ©w Ji©dw *ii»fciv© ei aldT 


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 to be within 
the diaoretion 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 unless 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 1, 


"hil© the act of the defendant made it impossible to comply 

with the agreement with the plaintiff, under the terms of the agree- 
ment in question the defendant was to rent the premises to such person 
and for suoh period as the defendant deemed advisable, still when 
the defendant did deliver possession of the premises within the 
period provided for in the agreement, defendant was to pay the sua 
received or which should have been received for suoh 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 executed, and the defense offered by 

*jiisi>fl9l:»£> 9rf* lo xiol*srto«lb srf* 

«irfe i ol^ja^iiflfc itsfeflw Sill j^saao yXIawsI^oa •«» 

9di *fjoif*iw aseiasTG ©xl* 'to iicigsSBaoQ i-sviXaL oJ d-nsiinalaA «xff «6i 

rfoim »T«r" *il«fltai atdt f^dt xtisqisioO t^&lsoH flt'schasT Bdt 

,1 tpM fflO'^'^ «B««X %»&X svl:'?: sri* 1:6 ^innisscf axf.-t ©Misd' nofeeaaeog 


YXqsoo Qt aXcfieeoqiui: i'i 9ij«fii 4i3ws^©l8:fc Mi to ;r3«, «d* eXixi" 

aoaisq rtowa o* essimsiq ©ii^f iaa? «# aaw txtsiMxsl eJb. ail* xtoitfaai/p ni d-aaai 

Sfi* zxi^Jfiw eaoiffl©T.Q ©rf* lo BoXsasMBsaq l:9▼i:X«^l> htb iaBta&l^b arit 

au/e 9.d* yaq o* •mvi tmitaQl^t ^.$&im9»%i&si pM; Mi. sol b^Mvoiq betr&q 

•gtii^&»i®T 4O0» 'so'i b0vii»&&% isaad av^ri JbXaoria riolriw to ft-^vieasT 

,xr, sao'fljaosG ^iiiijfla bus »MGX ,X X's^"3*«<^«'* «»''* boxxeq 9d4 ■gai'xsJb 

BirfX «tOi"r*noo 9dt ni tol b»blvotq Bnolioub^b »iit -xatflifi ^J^seX 

ajl* TO"* so©i»®tq ail;)- S-^Xa-s O* ^ixsiiuast 9t> ari* fjaasweqaa flolelvoTtq 

tiiBlMialsJb 8il^ ^aJbflw^ e^f* lo tfqiaoai acqw JEus.« ,eXc(B«oB«si i&««a!»©f) *Hi/0JHa 

BJioX^owfcafc 9iU s8©X ,b«»vl909i ^flu/oflis siiiJ- %oJ. iauot>os oi b&xlsjp9i aaw 

ad* lo ifne^xii arid- aidJiw ton «*w ^njsljcslai) aa* "io tOA ajiT 


the defendant is not available and would be in violation of the 
terms of the contract. 

The plaintiff contends th-'t in the event of a reversal 
of the jud.ment for the defendant judgment may be entered by this 
court for the anacuiit alleged to be due the plaintiff. 

Upon the question of evidence supporting the claifj, of 
damages, it is not clear ths.t the sum of $640,00 paid by the 
tenant for the period of its lea?e 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 liiay assess plaintiff e' daaages. 

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 lack of competent evidence in the 
record on the question of damages, and in view of our expression 
regarding the merits of this controversy, the judgment is 
reversed and the cause is remanded, 




,fr>n%taoQ BtiS 'io anr-x©* 

.11 J J"r,aoo 

■■—'■■■ "j- ' -■ 'Tq fi *ofl ai ,8iB9x ®vll toI e&ni^/ioo fins ,3Sex 

©|J# *Bfld- .; on -.')'<■. arl.j- -xnT •xijcoto *oa »i »OflC«|>lva aixfT 

noiB8©rtqx9 rnjt) to w»iv xii !>«« ,s9 .:j!(«»I> to rtOi^sewo ©ri* ao b^oo&r 

,&d&a£!&ta'x Mi 9Bami sdi bcvs b&srQxer 

.ulffKAJJIH QUA rr^«sfv;KH 

(iSA »L 4'i. ,^. 





Appellant. S 2 9 I .A. 6 7 

The plaintiff, Ridgewood Cemetery Oompany, an Illinois 
Corporation, filed its bill of complaint in equity against Christina 
Pearson, defendant. The cause was heard before the court ajad resulted 
in a decree finding that the facts alleged in the hill of complaint 
were true and granting to the plaintiff the relief prayed for in its 
hill, from which decree the defendant appeals. 

The decree finds that on April 35, 1934, the plaintiff 
agreed to sell and the defendant agreed to buy Lots 134 and ISO 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 guarantee they 
will double in value in twaaty-foux 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, 1938, 
defendant brought suit in the Municipal Court of Ohioago against the 
plaintiff, which w?s an action for a refund of the purchase price 
paid for said lots, and in which suit it was alleged that the lots 
had failed to 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 $3,300, which judgment plaintiff (who was defendant in that action) 
appealed to the Appellate Oo\irt of Illinois, First District; that 
the latter court, on ssid appeal, reversed the aforesaid judgment of 
the Municipal Court, and entered judgment against the plaintiff herein 

\ aoHi^^^msA ( B tXinA'mQo im 


' J 1 

■■■'■ - ( ^fltXISqc ■: 

«ioaiXXZ «« ixn-st^fi'o^ Xtss.temeO JboowSsJ&lfl jlti^nislq trfT 
altaliriO #aaiASJB t^iirp® ni Jfli.sXnaoo lo llld eft Jb«Ii!t ,floU!?ioqToO 

i^flialqisoc! lo ilicf ^di at Jb9s©IXffi ©^ost »rf* *«rf# siiiJbnil 99io«fc « at 

♦ Bl'secrtfB i^fl.e.6nslftJb ©i!* setose dotdm moti «ixzcf 

flX 08X bas I^SX etoJ xw<^ o* JE)©«iSs trtsfciislefc erf* Jbne XXe;.. o>; ^^sr-^s 

Jbsd-sooX fjxi« ttt&RtBLq 9dt x<S Jbsnwo afjnwoxa x^s^sjbso «rlt lo S floi*o«e 

n£)9f)Xvoaq •Xbb «riJ gniTdvoo i-osid-noo si?* ,t<:;rf;f jtiOfllXIl ,t*fljyoO :looO nl 

XXun ex ^o ^-r^noo aiff^ to erisJ-noa ti?o'i-Y*a«»cl" fli ^xaIbv fll aXcfyoJb XXlw 

bexevttco Ji'ittatnlq i^fiBBfdt tBdt ** ibnbauJ.®r ay:»aom Il» ba& btor bne 

,SSeX »^ ts6o&oQ no t.rdi jabsst. jci inB.baQ'i®b ®xf# o* aJoI biea 

Bdi ttals'QB o-^xotdO 1o itsjoO LaqtottuM arid" a.t iiu& td:guo'xd tasbas'i^b 

•olrtg 9EcriOTjyq srf* to bnu'i9t s roli aoiic^^ n" a-w rioirfw ,11:i*nX.cXq 

BtoX 9rf;J' ^Bdi bs'g-^LlB esw ti itu^ rfoiriw ^'^^fol bi ■ " olBq 

X.exrt* ari.^ ^'>di jBrid-nom iJJot-Y*flfflw:t ni «i;i-v ni sIcfxioJb oJ- i^eXi^l; b^d 

truoo ari* siolocf fcerf bbw rioldw JtruoO ijsqioXni/M srfd- nt esu.^o srf* to 

iTi-^Ter; "tltiatsLu srf* (Tanisss d-nsmsfcwt •e ^i Jbs^Xijasrt ,YTturt; s JwoilJiw 

{aotioz tMi at innbas'tBb a.RW odv^) ll^^nlfiXq ^ctsmglJt/t; dotdn ,OOSeSS tol 

d-r^ri* ;*olt*elO JBtil «e2onlXII lo JxuoO 9*sXX©QqA srf* oa' fcaXissqqa 

\ ■ 

^o d'nsfligJbut btsetrols 9di fcaatsvai j,X«*q?:t8 J^Xes no ^truoo iBtissl ndt 

for #1,145, and costs expended in the Municipal Court, and entered 
Judgment against defendant for costs expended by the plaintiff in 
the Appellate Oourt, 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 
Oourt finds that the agreement to sell, and the conveyance of said 
lots pursuant thereto to the defendant, became qnd are wholly null 
and void, and that plaintiff is entitled to ttie 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 othenrise 
disposing of thi two cemetery lots in question, and that the contract 
of April S6, 1934, 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 Pddgewood Cemetery 
Company, plaintiff, to whom Christina Pearson, defendant, is 
ordered and oommanded to execute and deliver a formal instrument of 
oonveyanoe 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 Cemetery Company to Christina Pearson before the filing of 
the bill of complaint in this OR.use; 

That any demand by Hidgewood Cemetery Company upon 
Christina Pearson for the return of the cemetery lota in question, 
after the rendering of the judgment and opinion of the Appellate 
Court in Case Ho« 33485, would be unavailing and that any such demand 
would be refused by her, regardless of the f?ct thpt the Oemtery 
Company had paid to her the amount of money referred to in the opinion 

.ftistrsjfi ;tfllsXq»oo lo ILtd ail 

„. .i#flo© ®rf* *Add- Jfe«.fi ,i«)i*89i/p Hi BSl'oX Yi»#«m®o owl «t{^^o snisocjail) 

■SiTi;fjii^j£'''r sfri.r.f>n6l:©& »di bOM Jtitatnlq 9dt tt99vt9^^^t^B8X Jj^ lirqA to 

ttnt'?:£q ^tf-t tzotl ©©aju^evaoo to o&eal) •4#J^0« *ad-QX bias 

: ?lp»b 9nM ,«HSRa ©ri;t aaiyoYflOO ,*iiJ3£ifl»t9Jb 

, ■iisba^'i^t «i709TB9<% MattBtrAQ ooifir o^ «ttilflisXq «xnsqffloO 
to tnaituuxd-aal XbajioI: b tsvilmb i>tt& 9ftt99Xf o$ b9btt»mo9 JbnT, i>9T®6^0 

• eJoX wid- j^ni5»voo alsX© #itfp boB 9oa»X9raQO 

Iv -isliBqc '1 b»riita9 ta^KgbulBdit^ti'i 

to sflXXXt •«* •cco^sd fl03i:fiSSt.^X*|ilt49 Of ytsqffioO x^sf»«90 feoow»sfeiH 

;»8W.«o aJUft ai talBlqmoo to Xlicf 9ri;J^ 
rvoqxj \t:isi^oi> ^ai^mBO baov&gbl^ Tcf basm9b Ya« iffixlT 

s^jgXXsjqqA Qdi to noiitXqo fin,? *jn9iijgJbi/t ®^* ^o 3iiiTs|jiT9i ariJf t©*t.8 
I^nsflHQfc Hows xnjB *Bri* fcnB sniXiBveaxr scf bSsscm ,38i'S5 »oM S840 Jil *»uoO 

ixoiaiqo 9il* ni ot b^rrst^t x^aam to *nxK»i sii o* l)X«q fisri x««loo0 


and judgment of the Appellate Oourt rendered in that 05 se; 

That the opinion and judgment of the Appellate Covirt of 
Illinois, are fully and correctly set forth in the hill of complaint, 
and are the aame opinion and judgment referred to by Christina 
Pearson in her answer filed in this o^use, and relied upon by her 
as a defense in these prooeedings* 

In this of Chriatina Penrson. (glaintiff) Appellee. 
▼» Hidgewood Qemetery Company. (Defendant) Appellant, the Appellate 
Oourt of Illinois in its opinion said; 

"Plaintiff Christina Peprson in her statement of claim, 
filed in the Municipal Court October 4, 1928, charged that on 
April 35, 1984, she entered into a, certain contract in writing 
with the defendant for the purchase by her of two cemetery lots 
from the defendant, Ridgewood Oemetery 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 ie null and 

void and all moneys refunded*' 
* * w 

From the testimony it appears that the plaihtiff paid 
the sum of ; 1,000.00 in full for the lots in question, as 
provided for 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 
accepting her deed in full, she wsived any rights under the con- 
tract. Defendant argues th^t, in order that plaintiff might be 
able to 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. '*sith this we oannot agree. Moreover, plaintiff 
on July 5, 1938, offered to return to the defendant the lots in 
question 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 W'S entitled, under the terms of the agreement, to w?iit 
until the expiration of th« 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 breech of 
guaranty. Having e. right to an action at law, she could bring 
her action at any time within the statutory period of limitations. 

There whs some evidence in the record, as shown by her 
testimony, from which the court could conclude th-jt the lots in 
question had not doubled in value and, as it w^s a trial before 
the oourt 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 oourt, appe^^rs to have been 
on the theory thst she was entitled to twice the amount of the 
axm paid for the lots* 

«i)-nl.9lqmeo ^o lltd Mi at ri#to1: #©» Ts:I*o©i:f«o bar, xl£ai\ stb ,al«nllil 

.^ni^sitiiC x^ e>* SstTStsMc tfiM^litfl; Bujs nolniqo •«,eB »£* ©as M^ 

TSrf "?ef .6alI»T M« »9eirpo alri* ni l>«lil: itsweaB iQrf ni ii08is»^ 

9&All^q& Biit t^flffllaoQA { ^a.?<feg33t^Q) .yg-E qajp O 'n:»d'»gi<'P l>OQy«^ feiy. •▼ 

:&ir.3 xiolfliqo e*i: jtii dioalXII lo ttuoQ 

■^O 35.1/8 ®.d;f TOl: ,X«*<?*0'3 I^ITS^aieoO feOO ■*":?_;.. .1. 

■Si-Sit i)©rii?f;fflOo fcas •^«J:^i;7.w ai ei?w #o.':5't 

•fj- nl 6»X.£1 

jxJIav ni 

* ♦i>9£>auT:9T: 8'\f®aoffi XXjs im-s X)iov 

f)iB<i "il:! ' 

*i Y-OOtiaiJ^ 

1:0 flU/8 9ff* 

u tol 69l)ivoTq 
:irl, at 9ibMlA BSW 

'1 eJ *x 

.i ' /tV: -■■J ■flx'-^ ':■ 
i*Xtif5XC{ 9£f* 

lliJiii.sXq jTSVoa-soM .©e^SiS 3- 

YS'iups ot ^T08»T oi i &ii'e «'•' 

l>sX.ti.tfl© e^Biw Jt'.acf ^noi. . i'?: Y-«i« su. , 

smiacf t'Xi/oo 9xi'8 «weX .*.« noiJos as 04" *dsii f. a^*^'^^*'**' •"• 
>s£ioJiis.ilmll Jo hotrsq {Toiut^itB arfo xilrftiw 9»i* V- cO- 'xaxi 

•rs.'l x*>' cwoiia aij ,lbtoo!Si Qiii ni ftofi9i)iv3 wcos i 
nl s.toi Sif.t .l-JFrirt sfcxjXonoo Jbli/oo iruGO 6iit fJolrlw Ro'ri: ^\'^o/Bi;^8©* 
3T0>9(f X-^iT* s 8B',«r *i 8*5 t^n^- «r/Xpf ni baXcfifO-b *on l>'-rf noiteatro 
vrani: 9cf hluo ■ '. ' ' "'''''' 

J . -i'j© 9dJ ni £' 
nsj^d av-'d o* eT-'RCfq^' t^xuco SiiJ io .^'■'il5«i"i •^^■;^' no <;;^ie':c. ^-x-n. •,, ui. 
»dS Jo titsJOfar 9d& aoi^r^ oi bfilil^a® sjrw 'axia #Biljr ^toerf;}- sxicf no 

,S!*oX eriil- aol i)i.f5q Bine 

From p. reading of the guarantee, it appears that alie 
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 entsry 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 s- id statement demanding more thaa that 
amount in dam-^ges. 

A proper judgment in said cause would be for |1,145«00, 
aame being for principal and interest at the rete of five per 
cent to d^.te. The Judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed 
and judgment entered here for the plaintiff for 11,145,00." 

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 oovirse of the trial of that action, she tendered to the plain- 
tiff the cemetery lots in question, together with the oontraot and 
deeds covering the same, but the plaintiff refused to accept them, 
and that her action in the Municipal Goiirt was an action for damages 
for the cemetery Company's breach of the »• guarantee" provision in 
its oontraot with the plaintiff and this provision of the contract 
did not become merged in the deeds whioh she had accepted; that by 
this action the plaintiff seeks to force Uiss 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 

©rie fBdt ere acyqjF }i , •; Bdt lo sni.&-9T s botI 

3.j-:^: ant ffioal nor-'i«in'.f i:::.;-; 'v.--;- ©vr-d ^sfc jj'B ^e9^^;^ai rioi/e ffd^iw 

Ja''fcn'?/t9t - ■ ' -'• ;■■ ■-'}'> ajii?lo lo d-nsai 

*.srjsf OJEiM^ Sit?"' vi,ii..j.«^is:..v.. .-ii-jii.r.j-jtf i..j. f i.';i .^-3iiiPd-itoo gntdtoa 
■ '■ ■ *8©'i^!^jHJ5.b ai iaaomis 

^sq svl^ to »*.^* ©if* ^fl ^saisa-ni fcras I l«cr ssisb 

f3©8S®T©t 8i d-^i/oO XRf:[j:oinmi srf^ lo #xissii,.,..,. ^ — ,, , ot taoo 

I«qlolntfff Mi «i jtioi:)-©.*! TSrf .5«Iit 4a®*tt.«9<i BatteitAQ ^Meba.^'Hb ©ff;f 

98JBdoiJL;q srt lo bau'i^'i. A.xlao bsbsismdb aoBiiSoSL »atii ,©8so ^ixmO 

• 9*1« 0ei#o« ;f.s^* ^© XeiTj ©ffif t* tmj , -'fit lo ©oiaq 

SaXv-,:-' .Tofjjj ;#fir4a3^fi«t ^S'Sfor-sr *^lffl ©ri« *Bri:;+ ;: • ■■ ici (•jrfj b9t9bn9t 

ttoi^ H«.ii«vt XjE»'fq.« ©ri# ai tisjeO et»lSBqqA Srif ax ./a©Si§l>ifi f)®5«Troo8T 

-•^■oi'f af';, &i-'H5 vinio^F jTesa^la/^ ®x{* jbnja. ,»».(?$ ^diT ^o tflSKtM ^dt rot 
,Tp:.9qffiO0 x'^*®*"®*^ s^i*" "s^o^ ♦but* flx c.tsat srff 8i)Xori 

T^alrub bofii ««s.R©lilO 'ic leqiolfti/M *»if^ r . isri j^i*trJj:*eai 

-ffl«X€[ 9d# o* bBT&foixBt ©t'isi tflfoJ^*o-« «f, V- -iid' erfj- !to aaxuoo ©ilS- 

jbns So-^siitoo &ii.f rlJiv t»i!i#'©-itOtf ,Hoi*8©irft at e*oX yite^SBiSo ©xft Hi* 

9Q-p,BSLBb lol ttoltos as esw trcudD Xisqioirstilii 9iit at aoltOB isri d-^sxl* bttR 

nt nolsitro'tq «»®#Abib;js" ©riif to dO'^^'ccf a'^miemoD t*«*^®5j ©ji* lol 

*o.««*frdc *il* to aoiaXvoiq airi* foa?" ttJri-cisXq ©li* cd-iw *o.8T*aoo 9ti 

^^ &Mti ;lx8tq©oi>.ffi bad ©rie rielrfw st-eai) »fi[.t al ba^tem aajooscf Jojh tifi 

tsnrnoooT o:f nGBTJssI eeiM ©otot o* a3{»©«f mttfllaXq ©iid- aoitos 8lxf* 

XJbBsaXs eaoi^eeirp ©.ti^siJ-iXr- - l-n^^PiO^ yi&^efflsC ©d* o* B;foX »dt 

Bxioonexrt© ex ©©to©!), «jU1# ©*xti j-'x?>rfJ &Rdt has iJbftniasf©*©^) ^XXsioibxri; 

»fo©at9V8T ©C - r '- Jbxis 

-nxu ux .'- n^.)t.d J .i..- ,,.:...- ^ i.... I./ ^niioass ©rid- ru'^^r ■ .-it iaBbaatub 9dt 
RBitirv B to BS19* ©£[* lefcm/ bBisvooSt Si'X,. cTtwoO 9*«XX©gqA 


contract which provided that "These lots sre sold with the guarantee 

they will double in value in twenty-four months or this contract is 

n\all 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 lota themselves, is 

stated in the oase of Osgood v. Skinner. 311 111, 339, 

"The rule of this court haa been th-Jt the vendor may elect to 
aue for damages or to treat the property as the property of 
the vendee, notwithstanding a refusal to accept it, and sue 
upon the oontraot for the whole contract price. * • * In 
Ames V. Moir. ISO 111, 583, 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 oontraot 
prioe over and above thd market price of the goods at the time 
and place of delivery; and third, to sell the goods at a fair 
prioe and recover from the vendee the loss if the goods fnil 
to bring the contract price*" 

While the language indicates thst this rule is applicable 
to the vendor in that esse, 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 \vhen she sued the plaintiff to 
recover the contract prioe of the cemetery lots* 

In the opinion incorporated in the pleadings in this 

matter wherein Christina Pearson was plaintiff and the Ridgewood 

Cemetery Company was the defendant, the Appellate Court in its opinion 


"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*" 

Referring to the above quoted opinion in ^hioh the Appellate 

Court passed upon the suit for moneys paid by the defendant 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 eontraot, 

and from the contrsot itself it would appear that in the event the 


nl 9l<i£0tlqqs- .'bQbmft^'x s\ lisjn 

,eS£ ♦XII IIS « iSf jtaiaie .y too^as;; 'iio sg. ;i Jbsifsd-a 

(jf/a £>jHis «*i tq»oo« o.t '- 

al * • * •SOiTQ iv 
iQ> : .t 'to 8830X9 Sii;^ It- Q3dJl O* ttflOOSE 

.-■.■.■ itjB »i>o03 eriif to ecu.-. ... .•..,■.:.-=. «. « .. .v-.Kr; i)0j8 r-^-^'-' -^ -^ .•■■-- 

•icfjsoiXqqjs si sjlut sln^ ii-Bn^ 89d-£0ii)cX ^gnjc/gasl »dt aXXrfl'. 
••JbiRSv ©riit 0* ©Xd - YXifiirp© 8i d^i jde^o t^df ci iol)fl»T 9d;f ot 

9©xrit ■«■ sx sitdxi floXi^BSif < iaai 9At at 

• aifoX Y**:* ;?•«««! 8» stf* lo •oXlq *Ofil*aoo ftffJ t©vo091 
bXx!# at s}jaihs-&L:i Bd:} ai betBtoqtootil aotalQO Hdt rI 
fi^oWsg-bXil ®di bnB t\itdl»£q sup* Uoet«9*5 sxxi^iBXtffO nXa'seifw T5;J-;rBin 
coiniqo B;fX rrl i-Ti/oO ©s-alX&aqA siftf <^ci?I-n9*i©Jb ©tl;)' a.Rw t-f^BgrnoO t's^'i^smsO 

iQd&B'gQi ^X'^iiom i^ti : T 9rf3- o^ \-Xnc tiSX-ti^ff? *»rf btaovf 

9tsh 9dt ajoTl nosi»fU ij^u'i^^-& av.sif x«m e ri^lw 

^■B£[.t flSslid' »1tO» SfltiiailJSffidX' SaIO^;';>?I: ' ' ' .rt 

sjfsXXeqqA 9x1* ifoiifw r' ,o bQ&oi: aflXTT:e^6H 

ar:;? al iasbasistb ndi xd bltsq 8x«aoii? toI *ii;8 e;: baeefiq JtcwoO 

#6d* Jb9T9ftianoo *ai/oo 9x1* tx&i @dt aovi\ Jxxo'xj? t-^sjso tasfBai 

Bm (tluB t&dt ai VtltttlMlq Bit) JiwJbnelafi 6dt xd b&S.n aoitos 9x1* 

^iORitaoo Bdi to bhit?>* 9xf* r9bau h- ' ■ 

9x1* *fl9vs 9x{* f!i *.(5xl* t^sqqfi JbXuot? *X IXse^i *oi5^*floo axl* ffiO'fi i:)a" 

cemetery lots did not double in value in 24 montiis, the purchaser 
of the lota could recover, and then the contract would he nvtll 
and vo£d« 

It is evident that defendant's suit in the first instance 
was to recover the amount psid under the contract for the purchase 
of the lots she received, and not as she now contends to retain 
the lots and to recover daaaages 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 wos entitled only to the return 
of the money she paid for the lots* It wo\ild seem only equitable 
and just that she receive the amount paid fox the lots under the 
terms of the contract and that she shoiald return the lots to the 
Cemetery Company by proper conveyance* 

As far as we can determine from the entire record, it 
vraa never the intention of the parties that the defendant was to 
retain the lots and also receive the amount paid for the purchase 

tinder the circumstances as we view them and in compliance 
with the vieijrs of the Appellate Court 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* 



i&aMoiuii? Brit ,firfti5©ffl *-£ si swIjBV'HJ: eitfiiob foiif fc-fcjb RSoI Y^sjf-ameo 

»BSdf*t£»q »sl$ tot : tiiB%iiixQO »fit t&btw tt.Bq trnjomz sriif is»vo©©i o# 
ai Jbf«<i|ti;e ased svjs^'l oif isaasiisXo aas^a*-''^ levoaai o* l)ne ad'«l 9dt 

»X<Jjatl«p® ^Xflo .TfRAr hitra,i>- ,^ ,.,.iQX »«■* tto* M<«ki «rf«. fftxjom odd- to 
Sffd'- i^if-vji! ?>:>■:. tqI .fei^q ^niiOflB?' 9a-? -"JVi^osf Mia SBdSi ieu'i, baa 

ft8«i£o:c&q Aii# vol ' 

ad* alBiei 

•1091 Sri* 
9 At leJbflU 

>o aw9iv ad* Ativ 
ituco ®£{rf- evslXacf 9w 

*OTOKOO ,t ,iIiIAH Oi 

«»AViaaufi; it txasa 


of the Estate of Andrew Siedlinaki, 

(Plaintiff) Appellant, 


a corporation, 

(Defendant) Appellee. ) 29 I. A. 6 T^ 


This action wa.s brought in the Municipal Court of Chicago 
by the plaintiff upon an insurance policy issued by the defendant 
and delivered to the insured, Andrew Siedlinaki, 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 ooxirt 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 
toy the applicant by his mark, he being unable to write English, 

The defense of the defendant is baaed 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 (3) before 
said date has b^en rejected for insurance, or has, within two years 
before the date of the policy, 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 oomoany, the 
company may declare the policy void, etc,** 

The issue is, did the insured in the application for 

{ »TMA'IMO0 SOHAFUfciWi mi r3M 

( » .8 

^T B ^ A "- 1 S { .- ( tn..b..i.a) 

,fc©8.»?9o«fe won ,j:>'sffiiXJ^»J3 wwrbstA »i(©ijcr«fil »ri* o*' l>©T®til9f) ba& 
rfd-BsJb 9rl* rtogw 8Xcfj?Y^g fcns «jeH5> ««# itoiriw ,0^| to mira Md- Yfljsqmoo 

*a»i«if el lijeqqs »tdi rfoirfw wotrt 
-.J5©ilcrv?s flftd'i-itw B &b!m b^ra^al &tit ,?'5€X ^d ^stfiiiso^C flO 

•rfeiXanI ©Jl-rr o* ©Xdnnw gnistf ©ri t^Jx-are 'bM Ycf *nfi©iXqq* ©xl;}' x<J 

"saot^itaee) aoqu Jb*ei3d «i jj-flnisflalafc ©rf* lo sanslsl) ©ffT 

oviX/i ton &t f)®Tf/8ni ©if* 11 (X)» '.swoIXol si? '^olloq ©rf* nt bQatsinoo 

Qiolecf (C) li 10 jxoiioq ©xi* lo ©*i5i3 ©tfjf flo riifXjeeri Jbru/oe ni *Ofl ©X i:p 

aTssy owd" niriJiw ,8Bri to ^aoxi^iireni aol i>s>o©t&Tt ne-'Cf ajsri ©cfsJb fclss 

Tins rrol Halola-^riq e Tjcf l)9tfl©Jit8 xtsscf ,^oiIOQ »rf* lo ©*«£ ©rf* siolatf 

YXXeoiliooqa nssd aari ©msE ©ri* saaXxrxf ,*nisXqffloo io ©eeeaib ax/oiiaa 

"»oi-9 ^biov xtt^Xoq »di ©ifiXost x^m tn«qaoo 
TOl nol*«oiXqqB 9dt ai bQrusai axf* btb ^»l ©waai ©rlT 


insurance wrongfully answer the queationa contained in the applica- 

The facts are that a Mr^, Fisher, agent of the insurance 

company, inserted in the questionnaire the wrong replies by applicant. 
Two answers are questioned by the defendant; one, th^t he has never 
been under treatment in any clinic, dispens?iry, hospital or asylum; 
nor been an inmate of any almshouse or other institution; and two, 
thet he had not been under the care of any physician within three 
years, (when exceptions are stated, give names of doctors, d«tea 
of attendance snd illness) and that he had stated all exceptions 
and every case when he had consulted or received treatment from a 
doctor at his office or elsewhere. 

How then, as to the facts in the record. In 1930, Andrew 
Siedlinski W0.s 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 ps.tient in a hospital for a period of two weeks. This 
same agent for the insurance company had knowledge and admitted 
JsM knew that the applicant was shot by a burglar, and, in fsct, 
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 xmtruthful 
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 trie insured, which 
was treated by a doctor* The application is dated December 5, 1933# 
The evidence ia silent as to wben the toe became infected from 
which the applicant died,. 

The evidence does not aid the court upon the question of 

ui&t t ,BTo;tooJb If . ^ loia^qapx© xwrfw) jBiisS-'c 

♦eisff<fr»Bl» TO ooillid aid tB rofoob 

aixfT ,Bi9&w o'i?.-; lo .ctuisq s lol: JLai^iqeod « ai idttiisq a sbw arf 
fsatJl»5« bR& »^&«Iwoflar Jbjad xftisqaioo aouBTJEfafli fuit aolt ^nsge »ffl,sa 

Ms bmso^ »tAt rol letlqmGd « ai Ise^BS-x* sew (fajsoilqqa 9tit indi woni 

JI ,fl0Jt*a9r/p aifif thitdk '%llint^it'j'r.t .t.\rr Mb tnjpeilqqa n&i ©tolartaif* 

Iwlrf^£>t;fnx; n.c ni Llf'. ' d^ aTalXarf o* fcxaxi ai 

^Xen^qmoti *««fcflsteJb arfi toI xiQit. * sfiii ail nedw I'Swaxis 

B. urtsrr fcilA ,aoiii5'£»afli lo aaioiJCof J-njBolIgqjs arid" rfoln'w ni 

Biff* lo aoni3W88i »d* to'i acoieeir.: * . ;'-8r: d-xje-sp eirfd- 

Qxft Ttsftlsffoo eir fl»ifw *fl9a« Sif* availac' o* btr-.d oaXs ai ;^I ,Y»-tXoq 

ffolriw tJbatwani '«rrd to Soj bejoslrsi h« Koqa feaajsrf obIb ei aBn-slal) 

♦?;?GX t3 TStfmsoaa fea^flJb ai xjoid-BOilqq* «cIT «TO:^ooi) « x4 f>a*«at# aaw 

moil fcedoa'ini am^soscf so* axi* ascf^- Nialia si aoaafiiTa axlT 

.iiiail) JnjSOilqqB ©rf* rioirfw 
to floitaai/p sri* noqi; ttuoo 9sit "hi »o«©i3iv! 


whether the deoeaaed in his lifetime did not truthfully answer the 
questions put to him by the agent of th© 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 judgiaent entered here for the plaintiff in the sum 
of |570, with interest thereon at the rate of five per eent per 
annuo from May 33, 1934| the date of the death of the insured* 





(Plaintiff) Appellee, 



Defendants below. 
On Appeal of B. M, PATTOK, 



29^11. 607 



The defendant appeals from an order entered on May 8, 1936, 
making the temporary injvmotions entered against her on iSaroh 19, 
1934 and October 35, 1934, permanent and denying defendant leave to 
file petitions to vaoate the injunotional orders* 

The original action in this ease 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 6823 South Wood Street^ Chicago Illinois* A decree of 
foreclosure was entered on December 19, 1932* The sple 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 
oourt on January 33, 1933. The period allowed for redemption expired 
on April 14, 1934, 

It also appears that on March 19, 1934, a temporary 
injunctional order w?a entered by the oourt restraining and enjoining 
B. 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 w^s entered by the oourt a f\irther temporary 
restraining order enjoining B, M, Patton from prosecuting or proceed- 
ing further with a certain case pendixig in the Superior Court of 



i,-^r / .'1 Tt!-\ 




. .8 ^OUOmU. BAMOHT 
«!(10'iTA<i ,M ,H lo X.eoqqA «y 

«9X ri©ti«M 00 taxi *8ais3jp b9X'&^a9 ^noliORulal x^£ioi.-,iu>. -uu gniiiSffi 

o* ©ir -^X ,+n-v r.-?>-r-^F) pfliifnafe Jbfl.B JnJWiKffii^q ,^?jex ,as n»«fo*oO Jba^ *sex 

»s*iafcTto Xfinoiifomxtni srii- ©*bobt oi 8noi.ti:^eq ©Xll 

-«iEol srfJ xio l)68Bd BBw ©BBO 8lri;f at aoltos X^aigito srlT 

tttfe ^di 'iot aioa ? to tami-.xm Sifj snitwose Ja©85 jBui^t o "lo siueoXo 

lo 89ao9l> A ,8JtofliIX2 ogji^oJirfO i^test^^S JbooW AtuoB SS83 *jb b^fsool 

B(i& \o 9X.S8 »dT .KSex tt;! TStfffisoeQ no banwd-ne «aw extfsoXooTOl: 

fcflj? ©IbB lo itioqsF ©rf* ijnsi ,5SSX ,~i xtBuanl, no t,6if bjsw sosiradaq 

lo TSfcio Y<^ bevoTqqs esw x^son/sriO ttt rr»!fa«M srfcf ytf aotiudlzt&lQ 

fctiiqxa isoi*qi»sB9'J: *rol JbewoXX* boix9q ©riT «aEeX 4SS -^i-si/njfsl, no trxxoo 

•I'Sex ,^X XiToA no 
Vi:«noq«9* « »*SGX ^SX dotM no tndt axssqqj?, oaXa H 
•gnlnloiafi ba^ sflixxi.atJaei ;t'3:i/oo b^tstas bgw rroMo Xsnoi*om/tfli 

3nii)J>9©0Tq tact't ^iBBqqn no aisn am-raalsi) erfd- lo ©no ,nod';feS. •!£ »a 

•oa.fsoXdO lo ^Tx/oO Xcqiolflxdt 
ao ifsdi' ffloil b©X.e9qqB •i9i: l. .....; csoil aiBSqqs oeXa tl 

XiBXoqm^i v^dixul b ^iwoo arit y«J £!9Tfi;fn9 asw a^ari* t^sex ,e£ -redoJoO 

-fiaaooTq 10 ^aituQSBO'ici moitl flO!f;f'=5'i ,*i .a ^talolas i&bio aninl«T*89T 

lo iJni/oO TOiiaqwe ©d* ni j^iMaq s««o at.Bix»o b ri^lw laxltax/l gfli 


Oook Oouuty, entitled B, M. P-tton v. Jrcob ^tpngle. et el . 

It further appears from the ssme order th"t the oourt 
denied the motion of this defendant for leave to file a petition 
to vacate the temporary ordere entered o fe oh 19, 1934, and 
October 25, 1934. The motion having been denied, the court entered 
an order that the temporary in junctional orders entered on those 
date a be made permanent. 

The court in the original proceeding entered a final 
decree of foreclosure and eale, and thereafter a s'le of the 
property iindej the t ^rme of the decree v»as had and approved 
by the court, and as we have stated, from the facts appearing 
in the order, the period of redemption in this foreclosure pro- 
ceeding expired on April 14, 1934t, 

It does not aopear thAt the court reserved juris- 
diction for any pArpose; 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 appealed from was without jurisdiction to enter 
such order making he temporary injiinotionsl orders of 
March 19, 1934, and October S5, 1934, permanent. 

For the re':'eoii.8 stated in this opinion, the order is 






ddi to »i'^5a « adJlA&isii* ta» ^&1m9 She srctraoiosto'i 1;o 99io&b 

jfcevoTccra 8»« s*%o«6 o«tJtraoI09iol «ri^ al tot bfihiyotq aott 
as^iis o;t aoitQlbatjsfi Ji;oftiw a©w fflOTl fie i««ftq« -ssfirto ©iW 8»|ox 



Appellani; » ) 



a corporation 9 } 

Appellee. ] 2 Q H T /\ ^ /» 01 

S9 0I.A. 608 


This action was Isr ought "by Jolm J» Zalinle7» plaintiff » 

to recoTsr damages for an alleged lllsel pul)llslied 1»y defendant* 

The fifth paragraph of plaintiff's complaint Is as followat 

"That on or ahout the 5th day of Hoyember» A* U* 1934» 
the defendant herein* malloiouely compoBed and caused to he 
pulsllBhed an article of and concerning the plaintiff In its 
newspaper called the Chicago Daily Ji'ews» which said newspaper 
v?as and is published and circulated in the City of Ghicago» 
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 la circulated » many of whom were freiud3» 
neighbors, business associates and aoquaintanoes 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 lihelous and scandalous nature and Is in words as follows t 


"'One man was seized and a second maji escaped after Louis 
Callahan, a United States courthouse guard, heard the two making 
threats against Samuel Insull in the corridor outside Judge 
*ilkeraon's courtroom today. 

"♦^The man seized was JacCb John Sahner, 440 South Clark 
street* who asserted he had lost ^»4»000 In Insull stock transac- 
ti ons • 

"'Cfdlahan, the guard, said he orerheard Zahner and a 
aeooni man talking *- that Zahner said to the second mam Sam 
Insull will pass within ten feet of you here and you can do what 
you wait to him* The guard grahbed Zahner and the second man 
flad down a stair* Zaliner told the guard that the second nian 
vfas named Petosky and that he had lost |100,000 In Insull stook 



*s?rooG Tiuo«xo mm cu^^ik { 


"^ ^\ f^ h T fl 

♦YTlSaOO 2130 D ( «4JJMI eSWgll YlUsZ OOADIHO 

MViiiua fc:DiT3UX DKiu;iaLH<i ^hm 

i^CQl »<i »A t-xetaas»vOi. l© v;>c& xi^O ©rid' .tuocfa 10 no tfarfT* 

^sqaqawsfi f)x,ra ffoJtdw tet'eli \;Xxj;:C o^c^isoMt) arf;* &9XX^'jo ■:■- 

ftOgijoiiiO 'io AEJxO &Ai vii .bt^ix-.Xwo'xJto brtis foeriaiXcfug bI ijii*i cjjif/ 

©Xqosq sxl* gnoas fK--a'3: xl^- ..■ barfs .M!:H"tirr csXol^i^bna 

j'itictniiiXq adi I0 aooaa^fti: sup 0^ bac as^nXooase '0' jarrorfri^lsn 

oi cpJ flsixl TaXsii bos 11.linl^.Jiq ?.Mi lo noicUHrfjt/q^i bne ssiisn boog nrf* 

B©rf«!lXcfif<j oa ©Xoi^XH blsa tesii lanovAilo VtroXX^l uxii 'io niooa oif;f 

awoIXo^ ap ybTOv,' ni si ban aiw^A^xi airoX-abfiiisoa btis axroXscfiX « lo asw 

TAssmf iiuatii III (is&iaa«» 

^bjit ©aiBrfiTO TOSbi^tioo 9J£,# ni iXwanl XowiJisa iani-e^^ e*«9^r{:f 

.\;xi&o;^ taoo-riiijoo s'ao.v ■•ri;. 

'-Oisaxxa's;^ 3loo;j8 IJUj&nl ai, OC>0»^v|; ;JfsoX barf sxf &©i}"io®aj8 oriw ti;)&x;)ig 

iadxf Ob jn«ia wo'v; hna s-tsrf uox Io ^aal: ciei nidi iyr aa^q XXxw XXj;faxiI 

tmts. bnoooe &di bius lomfsS b&d^BT:^ bxsisi'. srfT »raxii 0^ i cb\:i aox 

na« forsooea sri* iadi btav^ Bd$ bJioi TBmiB.l .'xxAiJa b rwob bsXI 

aIoo*B XXwaiil xix OOOtOOX# *aoX b^il sxt ;f^x[jJ biiijs x^aoisl baoBXi i-sw 

• BfiOid'OBenaid' 


••Zfthner was eearched, "but no weapons were fouad on 
hiiB find he was released with a warnin^^ to stay out of the 
courthouse. He denies making any threats, asserting that 
Petosky was the one who aaade the threats.** 

The complaint then alleges) 

**6. That on the came date, to-wit, on or about the 5th 
day of Movember, a. I* 1934| the said defendant caueed to he 
published in its newspaper, & lilveloua and ecandaloua picttire 
of the plaintifi', which said picture tended to and had the 
effect of holding the plaintiff up to the scorn and oritioian 
Of hie friendia» 'business associates, aeqiiaintcoioes and fellow 
citizens with \shQm he had theretofore been in good repute. 

*7* Chat a copy of said libelous awi seandalous 
picture of the plaintiff is hereto attached and ma-de a part 
hereof*" (Then followed a photoBt&tio copy of plaintiff's 
picture t^en with the courthouse guard and an assistant custo- 
dian of the Federal buil<^ing "VJith the wording "SITtTrnJ AT IS'^TJLIi 
TRIAL" above it and underneath its lower margin the followingj 
"Louie Callahan (left), United States courthouse guard, who 
8ei;>;ed Jacob :i;ahner (center) after overhearing ocaiTersation in 
wMeh Samuel Insull wea threatened outside the courtroom in 
vshich Insull is on trial, iiahner, laho a b sorted he had lost 
#4,00^5 in Insull stock transactions, was talking with a raan 
named Petosky, allegedly a f 100,000 loser in the Insull crash, 
who fled wheji Callahan approached. Sahner waa released vdien he 
claime'^ Petosky made the threats. Leo Cillotan, assistant custo- 
dian of the Federal building, ie assisting vdth the questioning.") 

"8. Plaintiff further alleges that by reason of the 
inalioious puLlic; tion and circulation of the said article and 
picture it had the effect of impairing and destroying the con- 
fidence of the public and particularly the business ascooiatee, 
friends and aoquaintanoes of the plaintiff in hie integrity, and 
has resulted in a Ioeb of business! tliat us a result of the pub- 
lication and circulation of said artiole and picture, people with 
vvhom he has done business nowrefuae to have any businece deal- 
ings ^vith him or to recognize hia as a reputable business mani 
that by reason whereof, he is being and will continue to be 
deprived of large profite and gains which he otherwise ^wuld 
have enjoyed and received." 

. . been 

wo inducements or Innuendos having/set forth in the coia- 

plaint, the alleged libel must be considered as a whole and 
exaotly as published. Considering the entire artiole, in our 
opinion, the language used would not induce readers thereof 
reasctaably to believe that a crime or wrong had been committed 
by plaintiff. The article Itself exculpates hia from implication 
of eriao and it cannot fairly be said thnt it impeached his hom sty, 
integrity end reputation, since his \7ordwB«B believed and he was re- 
leased on his own statement. Jo case has been cited and a diligent 
search has failed to reveal one where a publication in any res^pect 


'**t8ijii&'itLi sOi tibsHt »£» •ito »£i mm plae;f9'i 

0«f 5 b«v 

(».ii4 l^sd &£cs o;t hnbaoi 

♦ s^yqf^T lii-i ,., ,.... ... ... 

axrf lo 

aassXXj® "tSifJlcifl Itit^^i 

«j 0^ 01. , , 

'• . 

r&wc til ^zlz^iif.M otkfMm ■'6iii'tui*e»hti,- • -^ita-tXfJwq ^^ xjLicJs,x9 

losaadi «n;«fe«9t 9e«R«| j*ail Mwo'®^ &®s»tf &a^S'mxmX 9M »ffl©Jcfficto 

"'iNM^^JciitHDo ns««tf &i»if 'feilKjW'«tf ©iaX-ro ^^ cTi^jfli 9T©lX»rf o* XJWjaAOSi^st 

«oJ:*«oi:Xcpai ii»a1 old ueimXuoxB lXpe*i ei;****!!! sidS? •.111'^nXjsXti x<^ 

#jtxs:g,lXX& « bxM t>9iio cmV B«£l •««» ol «^ns«9t£^s tan aM £' 


Bimilar to tliat involred here has "been held to "be liljelous. In 
60 far as we haTe been a"ble to ascertain, tbe mere truthful 
recounting "by a newspaper of the facts in connection with the 
seizure or arrest of a suspected pers<»i has neyer heen held to 
constitute libel, particularly where the publication includes 
the fact of the exoneration on his owi statement of the person 
seized or the fact of the innocence of the party arrested* 

Plaintiff insists, howe-rer, that his complaint stated a 
good cause of action and that the trial court erred in not requir- 
ing defendant to answer it* 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 lihel ( Tilt<m r» Ma ley ^ 
186 111* App« 307 J Siej^l v. Thoapsoni 131 111* App» 164) need 
not be pleaded as a defense where the complaint shows on its faoe 
that to he tz>ue, which would he a good defense on a plea of Justifi- 
cation (ICewell on Slander and li-bel (4th ed*) p« 620; Rollins t* 
Louisville Tiaes Go ,, (Ky.) 90 S* W« 1081 j Rein r» Sun Printing 
and PuT^lishinj? Ass^n, 196 App* Div. 873, 188 JJ, Y. Swpp, 608| 
Chesepeake & Ohio Ry * v* Swarta » 115 Va* 723» 80 S* E* 668); and 
a fact plainly inferable from the allegations of a pleading is, as 
against the pleader, of equal effect on a motion to strike 9 as 
though expressly stated. (Moore v* East Tennessee Tel» Co»y 142 
led* 965*) 

v)Mle the fifth paragraph of the ocaaplaint includes a 
general ahaxge that the alleged libelous article therein set forth 
was false and defamatory, it does not aver 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 
of the complaint, that it was not charged that either the picture 
or the statements so printed or a.ny of them were false* That the 

XuMttiii isr®ai »sii «isi©.JiC9aes •»#, 9i«f» c»9rf ©v^ii aw ae ■£,,'>'i oa 
art* diiisr noid-oonnoo el 8#ofil dff^ "io Tsqeqaran « y<^ sJKi^K«oo»* 

jRoatreng;' aritf lo *xisns*stfa fr>fro bM xxo an ii js.'s.ejSLOT^ erf* lo ^o*"! 9x1^ 

jb &9*iJi^a tfisialqiaoo aM Jsxiif < ucfvewoil «s*aiBisl Iti^fnixI'S 
-TJt«p9i *i(>|i Mi fooT'ra d-xuoo Ijsxt;;} 9iiv > ©ew^o boog 

&M»x i iq.. *.iii in jiiSisjSJHiil '"^ . Cys&g-i^ ;fO£ •^qA *iii: asx 

siOF.I: Ciii no ewacCa ^rnl^Xqsioo dxi^t ototi^ ti^a^t&b e aa bdbAOlq oef c^on 
•^'txiawt iO Jislq a uo o^aatsb boo^ Js ©tf hXuow ifolxfw ,9ir£* acf Ov' ^«ri* 

jBCd .qciJi i . rax ?c.V8 .vM «<itA d^i t^ii'&aA ■^cMaX Xt^iJ^ bna 
as «ai 8Kiy.Q»Xt « lo axtoXiijaaXXJs edi sox'i oXtfjetcs'inl ■;iXoii3Xq *oa'3t s 

(.dd& .b9? 

£ aa&jtfXoni SfiijiXtiimvo oiic^ io rfqs'x^jsijsq sii'tl'l &di Qlxdi, 
dito'i iQB al&tedi eZoiiia asjolsilL b&^&LLj.:. sdi isdi a:giiido Ssi!iii&^ 
te&Xisl Qsiv il ait.x&d'K i&ra ioa neob -J I <'ii:^'o^.<.i>aQsl:a& ba» aaXfil a«v 
bBialxq, Bdi baa «e>^ir^olq a ♦ ill itaisXq ©* aa b»ioa ©cf XXl*? <rl &xts 

e-xwcfoxq edA tadi.l' " :'.' beaijaxCo rfon asw dX ^tAriJ- <JKi.«XqHoo edi lo 


picture published was a picture of plaintiff is admitted in 
paragraph sixth of the complaint. It clearly appears that the 
story contained in the statements below the picture ie 8u1»- 
stantially that related in the news article^ and the failure of 
plaintiff to allege that said statements were false must be con** 
sidered as a tacit p-dmission that they were true* Indeed » the 
statement made in defendant's brief that "plaintiff's couuisel ex- 
pressly BO admitted in the lower court** ia permitted to go un- 
challenged. 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 v&b seized by a federal 
officer at the Insiai trial! that he was seized for questioning; 
that he was questioned! that he answered that Petosky made the 
threats; and that plaintiff* u answer resulted in his release* Plain- 
tiff's complaint was Terified and he did not charge that the sub- 
stance of the story as published under the picture was false* 

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 Zahnler's seizure and questioning were true in fact, said 
complaint was vulnerable to the motion to strike* In Rollins v* 
LouiBville Times Go» , supra * where a demurrer was sustained under 
almost similar ciroumstaiioes, the court said at p* 1083 3 

"Ordinarily the truth of an alleged libel must be pleaded 
as a defense { but that rule can only apply when there is n necessity 
for such a plea* If the petition shows that to be true which would 
be a good defense on plea, the latter becomes umieceBsary, and a 
demurrer exposes the infirmity of the petition. iSfo one can be 
heard to comilain in a civil action that the truth was published 
of him." 

The pleadings and facts in the instant case are very similar 

to those ia Bein ▼. Sun Printing and Publ i shing AB3*n , supra; where 

the Hew York Sun published an article stating that the plaintiff 

therein was "arrested on a charge of dealing in stolen securities" 

iitii iaiii &%si&q,q^ \;X'i:»«!X?J iXfiXqiaoo sdi lo Atxia t!q,Jiz^eiz&q_ 

•'Wtvo ©ft' ^atfac ®aJjBl 5»ti«-!v sSusiKstis^c's feloa Sajn'* »ii«»j:X« o$ "ilJtj^nJijalm 
ad* tb«>o6Kl 4 9^*0* »i!sw if:arfcf iBSii m>i«sij3l5.(s d'loa^. a bjs bsta&Jta 

»oeX«l a*5w er£ir^o£<| eif# -ssfefiw i^ejafaJtXtfurqr «« '^•xOu+e ©rf^ 1© iaoasd'a 

bi^s niojAl at 9iLfrr# ntsw s«lH0i*»»Mp baa «ws:«r&±«8 « •"isXicIbS SJHinisc 
•jafeixa &©fil®ia08 Q^?? ^BX'swiiiefe ;s «w:9^«f t^ltj^ia « ♦of) a»Mi:T 9XX ivaXjTOjI 

feXtfOvT ^oirfw fwj^ti ©cf 6;J i^A^ Bv.erfs noWx^eq arf* 11 *a*Xq ^; Howe rcbl 

• < csi.f ff lo 
rijaXJtflria VJ:®'^ ®^fi »«jbo tfitc*anJt sri^J al ad'ojs'i brts a^ni&BeXc[ ©fit 

I'iirf^ljaXii ad* ^ffflfitt S«*^«*a ol^li-t& as boiiexXcfA/q m/S jI-ipY v/al &£i 

and tlie complaint contsinec! a general allegation in the usual 
language employed la actiont, for litel that "saic^ article was 
a false t defamatory, scandalous and Eialicious lihel upon plain- 
tiff aad his reputation," hut in other paragraphs of the oomplaint 
the plaintiff failed to rapJce specific denials of the arrest. In 
that case in affiriaini:: the ordsr of the trial court which sustained 
a demurrer to the oonipl^-lnt on the ^^rcund that it showet? on its 
face that the fact of arrest was true, and that, therefore, there 
had not heeii a lihel, the court eaid at pp*. 609, 6IO1 

*'It Tftill he noted that the sixth p8.rr:.graph of the com- 
plaint in which the article is set forth at length, does not 
state fiiut the ax-ticla La i'tiloe and libelous, but siBiply sets 
forth the matter without characterizing it. If the complaint 
had oet forth plainly und unmiatakably that the statement that 
plaintiff had heen arrested was false and untrue, I should "ba 
of the opiaicu tliat a gond cause of action had heen stated 
herein; hut, if plaintiff in fact had oeen arrested, there was 
no llhel in so statint", smd therefore, in my opinion, it was 
necessary that there should he an unmistakable denial of the 
cliarge that in f^ct he had heen put under arrest. 

"I am of the opinion that the eighth paragraph Ciuotsd 
so qualified the statement in the Berenth paragraph that it 
does not aiacuxit to a dc^iial of the fact thb.t plaintiff had "been 
actually arrested. As X read these two paragraphs in connection 
with the sixth paragraph of the complaint, the complaint avers 
no aore than that the article is false* in that it charges that 
plaintiff hs,d been arrested and charged v/ith criminally receiving 
stolen property and with participation in a criminal conspiracy, 
&n& that the plaintiff was an untrust^vorth;^'' man. This innuendo^ 
it seems to me» is absolutely unv^arrauted by the article itself, 
which makes no such ch^rge. Oa 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 true. 

"N©r can I escape the conviction that the very qualified 
and xmsaciaf iiotory terms in which the denial is couched are in- 
tended to be Bolely a denial of the fact that plaintiff had been 
arrested on a chc^rge of criminally receiving stolen property and 
with participation in a criminal conspiracy, and are not intended 
to deny the fact that plaintiff had been arrested upon uome 
ohfirge, even though later discovered to be unfounded. It wovild be 
very easy to have denied that plaintiff ever was in fact arrested, 
as set forth in the article, if such was the real situation. I 
believe that where there is no allegation that the whole article 
is false and untrue, but specific portions are picked out as being 
false, the denial of the truth of such specified statements 
Ehould be plain and explicit. 

*l:a my opinion, therefore, as the sole ground upon which 
plaintiff could have charged that he was libeled was that he was 


osaiAsdajji* iiaiiift .s-wao Li&tit wrfj 'la Tefc?tc ©jd? aniffi'iills xii ©Biso isitrf 

jOXS *«?0d i^g itiS &iaa.^'iaoo aii,t ,IdrfiX js iisatf ^oia bail 

;tEJ;.r^Xqwoo erf* II. ..* -> *ifofC.+ 4w t33;tj^ta eff* rf.-t-o't 

aoff j.;. . : , -'^, '■- 03 III ''-■'■' - ■' 

... ^. ^ -k ,.,.•■: . 


fid-oc' Aiitii awoxfrj ;ti: <vi- 

QXtnli-xii isdi bos ^bsJ^aaixXis n^sd" ara^ i&mt 

■ js 9dt bai'iilalfp oa 

,. .. .w... ., oi ^lUfOffWs won aeiob 

J iadi Widi ^niom oa 

-. "Jo ^XRC «/tii :=r^ 

■niiiS \,X. 

af bXwcaf 91 * ajlt o«f p. 

tfosj,^©a:ta itoj--!.. ...... ... ■ isT© 'i :...,......, , . .... „..._... . ... ,. .. 

X «noJ:;fiytJ*la X-e'x s>tii esw dowa 'rx ,0X0X3^155 atii nt dsio'l ft-:. 

SaidcT as i^vo h^^oiq ':■■■ a isjtf » rta eaXB> aX 

rfnirf;^' rroqtf Lm/o'i^ sXob 6x13 s£ , saolatsrf* ,nolniao t® fl* 

said to hare been arrested* when ia jfact he was not» and an the 
complaint is not fairly suKcepti^)!© of the construction that 

plaintiif wae not in fact i.rrsstsd aa stated, the order appealed 
frow should he affirmed." 

Since the essential facts of the pul^lication in the case 

at "bar are admitted to be true upon +.ho faoe of plaintiff's 

complaint, we are of the opinion that said compleint was properly 

stricken hy the trial oourt. 

Tor the reasons stated herein the Judgment of the 

Circuit court is affirmed. 


i'rli.end and rioanlan, JJ*, eonour» 

nxfJTsrf ft^?.:fB*8 8noa^e«r ojffJ to*? 

.baartx" ! ..woo rfiwoiiO 




Appellee ji 


JGHH R. HUMISR15T» administrator, 
etc* 9 



29 0lA,6Qi 


ThlB case InyolTes a claim for $6,500 filed "by Antoinette 
Hvuaphrey against the estate of James Hvunphrey, deceased, which 
was allowed to the extent of $2,028 in a Judgment entered l^y the 
Prolsate court upon the verdict of a jiiry finding the issues ia 
favor of claimant and assessing her damages in that sum* John R« 
Rumphrey, as administrator vTlth the will annexed of the estate of 
James Humphrey, perfected an appeal to the Clrcvdt oourt where 
claimant appeared April 4, 1935, and filed a demand for a trial 
"by jury* Uoventoer 22, 1935, a verdict was returned in claimant's 
favor assessing her damages at f»5,000, and December 24, 1935, after 
defendant's motionsfor a new trial and in airrest of judgment ?/ere 
overruled, judgment was entered hy the Circuit court upon the ver- 
dict for Bald amount to be paid in due course of administration 
out of the assets of the estate* This appeal follov/ed* 

James Hiamphrey, a bachelor, died May 26, 1932, and Fehrua y 
16, 1933, the aforesaid Antoinette Humphrey, wife of rOLhert Humphrey, 

.YTTCJOD 2000 «TSOOO ( ifOSlIoqqA 

i^ 8 .A^I 6 S ! «To*st*sifiteb« .-r^jKHqafiffi .h moi 


KAVLIIUa SOlTaiTL {)iiiaiaSiH!«i .HU 
eii&axoinA \(i belli 005<d4 zot talBlo ^ BQvloval ©e^o airfT 

Hit eauaai Bdi -^aibnlt xzul s lo ioibiav eiii noqu ;}'3i:iroo ©iflcfo^l 

»S ixiioTi .mwa ^tcxl* ttl ee-^ina&b -x&d gtJttiaooaeja bfia iajssii&lo lo 'xotsI 

lo »*a*a9 Oili lo bsxs/xtos Xliw ad.* tiitw -xai nri a ltii.i!!!b& ejs ,Y®i'fiQ'^H 

o«©riw i-ximo ibsorlD &A^ oa Is9<:;.qB og bed'osliaq (iY,»xEfcj£a0lI asmsL 

Xsiu* J8 tol fcflJBEisb X5 balxl bttB «5£Q'X <^ XxiqA ftstaaqq-s iimmtBln 

io;flc jQc.SX <AS is»dfii9j59a brtfi ,000, 3'^ *« ass^w^sb tad sfiias«>38s tovbI 

©taw ^tiomsbwi; lo Sne'ris ni bnc Isixd' wen b lolanoicfom a':fnehm='ieb 

'•:(:3V oilrf ftoqw *iiroo iluoixO oxict "^ef bstoina bmw iaear^bisl ibtluiiovo 

tiolieiialttlmb& to satiSGo sjjo ni blaii &(S oi imiosoii bi«a -xol *oib 

.bewoIXol Xaagqa axxfT teis&aa atii lo aisaac an;^ 'lo iuo 

X jaivSo'i bOB tSCeX tdS X^ bsJtb tioXsrfoacf b «Yoiiiqfiu/H auioBXi 

txCe-uictJWH tf-sscTXA to sliw ,\;©tai(5:au/H ©(TcranioJxiA bisaoiol* »sli %€S.Ql «SX 

a "brother of decedent, filed her olaim in the Pro"bate court, as 
follows I 

••For That \VhereaB, the decedent herein, James Himphrey 
did on, te-wit, April 5, 1923, purchase certain real estate in 
the City of Chicago known asj to-wit, 8333 Drexel Avenue, and 
"being posBessed thereof did then and there request the plaintiff 
and her husband to live with him, said decedent, and did prosdse 
the claimant herein that if she vifould attend to the household 
duties in said house and do the laixndry work of James Hiunphrey 
and also advance and contribute toward the purchase price of said 
premises the sum of OFS THOUSAHD (#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 provide; that said claimant 
has in all things performed all things as requested by said James 
Humphrey and resided in said premises until the death of said James 
Hximphrey but that said James Humphrey failed to comply with his 
aforesaid promises and to repay said sum of One Thousand ($l,oOO) 
Dollars so advanced by claimant to her damage in the sum of Siakty- 
Pive Hundred Dollars (^6,500) aiid said decedent ia 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, 192?, 
in which he devised ^real estate o^vned by me *** at 8333 Drexel 
Avenue," Chicago, to his "brother John R. Humphrey, who was to "us© 
said property for the haiefit of our mother during her life time •« 
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 involred here, 
deseended in equal shares to his three brothers, Al"bert Humphrey, 
BoTaert W. Humphrey and John Ro Humphrey, and his two sisters» 
Catherine Hawk and Youzealla Fitzgerald* 

Ihile the evidence is in conflict as to some of the facts, 
it is undisputed that decedeht made his home with his hrother Al'bert, 
the latter's wife Antoinette and their family from 1913 until 
June 1, 1931, with the exception of tv^o years when he lived irtth 
his brother John R. 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 


iTii^nlBlq ©rf,t -ia&ffps'i ^'xhiU baa as>Ai bib lootsrirf beaasaaoq bk^s^^ 

ssiastoiq feJi) ba& iC'a^b^oah bisa ^isiri rfitlvsr svii ©i' bnacfei/xf -xari baa 

fiXoriaawojti arfi od .!»n©d'^jB bltfovv oiia "il *;jrfj niaiorl ;J/.iButi£Xo @di 

XQtdcimshl 'dQmzX 'lo jfirow xnbins&l Bdi ofe bri/.- aeijoxi fcijse ni ssl;ft;b 

& enii Jeiii «Kti:s-CXo(L {OCO«Xt-) (ISLi.- -IQ 'io jhus 0Ji« asaiiaaus 

acfi 9€f bXMC»/ ^0 0* #i©X erf bXi/ow aJ-noxtiiTOiqcil fon^ fa;fB;tao Xsotc 

;^n®iC±«Xo 5x38 i^^ri;? l^^lvoiq oe bXaow XXi?^ aM isidi bim mhl bsTivxt/a 

aajKsIi bhis x<S bed'ssjjps-x ai3 asaixC;t XXb &9ia:rolr©q: asaMor IX« ni sjsxi 

8SiH/-t 6Jti7s "io ri*.f>85 odi llicas &@aimeiq, biasi «! Babiaoi btta •z&rndqsiisti 

sM iljiw -rlqi^o ot bolial x^tdq^mill c'.r>tml hhMS isdi iud Tij;o*xrio[J!ja;H 

(OOOtXt) boBauod'l- onO lo jmra bLou Y'S^!''^'! o* f''-'^ aseictp'/g bii^asiolfi 

-•^^tiS lo a^E^3 ©rf* ni s^xjiaBb Tsrf o^ ;t«jBaixeXo xcf baotisvbs oa a'XBXXo'.! 

©^ bsitd'o&ni: oaXs ai inabeosfc &x.oa bixg (00at3#) e-xjsXXoCC beibni/H svif 

j^sn^'iis -ioa bfis locf.'X baa 3l'xOw lo'i «Kue asfiX ii ao"i a-toiad iruitatslo eidi 

".^n9b©os>ft biaa '2© saw »xlJ lol Tori tscT bsonsvbis 

«?S'ei (^'■S Yflli h5ij3b ^nGsmiaei btm XXlw iJ'sjsjX « ^leX SnsboosCi 

Iax©*:i: ££S8 iB *^-^- ssj \:cr baawo e#e*aa I^s'x'' bsaivab srl xioMw nl 

saw" 0* aj3w oriw ,^3ixlq.fiUJH .H MfoL leM^oxtf aM o* «os^oM9 "i©«ii9YA 

Rx Xtiiiiisi/pseaooKi acT icXiao Xi... d^h,» < ^.t, ud^aaaaao^ bslb xsoilqmrH 

^nolrj^/jt^ai-jnlfubjii lo a^aoo «XXl(f Xsx»mrl lo ^oeisiXAq teilB ;txweau 

,9iou bsTXovni ;f^^ aaxi^ i6xi#o eEiissXo bowoXXs fcrus aoal a •'•janrto*** 

(Ys^'iecfiajH ^rretfXA tatsurfio^tf as'irf^ ' -■ - ' a&tisfle X«tfp9 jctl babn&oasb 

*bXj3is)ssl^1t «XX«9si;oY bxijEi jSxbH entxndiaO 

^eiioli'i Gdi lo &sss>a oj .^^, d-oiXlixo.o ni a.t 9©n©bxv9 sriJ oXiriiP 
J .erfX tsdiord Bid dilff eta»d aid sbwat tfrfa&sosb ^srfd' fto^wqaibitx; ai ii 
Xi^trfir £xex raotl yXIibbI tladi bna ©;^*ofi±oi^iir\ sliw a'TtaiJjsX adi 

jtl^iw bavxX «x£ iXfttifr 8T,«ie>Y ^^^i lo rtoi^fqsoxo ©ricf rfvtiw «X^.'^': ,^ J^mrl 
,£SCX tJLttqA at iasli iT3ii*oirt sxxf '' r ~ ■-•rrfqmfH .-1: xirioL lonio-ia aM 
QfiW ,woXjBS«wcr £1 xfiXw bovoiqiiti isijifay. Xsxsic <r,££a d'c xi'^9<l0'ifi &di 

basi baxarnoo oiaif^rii &liXi ba^i inabeoeb lo SiHcn adi ai beajarfo-ura 


a guarantee policy covering same issued to Mm; that in May, ie23» 
decedent moved into said premiaes with his brother Alhert and his 
family and that Mhert paid no rent as long as James Humpiirey con- 
tinued to live with himj that ths health of deeedeat "began to fail 
and hiB condition became such that he was forced to retire fr<»a his 
emplosrment with the Illinois Central Railroad September 1» 1925f 
after which time he received a monthly pension of ^>a3«37 from that 
company; that he also received j^^ie and later fl4 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 Ms position 
v/ith the Illinois Central Railroad was hie afflioation with Parkin- 
son's disease [paralysis agitans]» which became progressively Worse 
xmtil 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 accoiuat in his name and his 
brother i^lbert's, so that the latter might make deposits and with- 
dravi/als when necessary in behalf of decedent; that in ths latter 
part of 1929, James Humphrey desired that his bank account be trans- 
ferred to a larger bank and Albert Hianphrey withdrew the $2, 318*45 
balance then in the s ccount at the Cottage (Jrove State Bank; that 
i'ebruary 8, 1930, Albert Humphrey deposited $2,000 of that amount 
in a savings aocotint in the Continental-Illinois Bank & Ti'UBt 
Compaiiy, which he opened in his name; that several months later 
Albert tlunphrey changed said accoimt to a joint account by having 
the nane of decedent added thereto; that Jajnes Humphrey was removed 
by John E. Humphrey from his home at 8333 Drexel avenue to the Home 
for Incurables June 1, 1931; that from the inception of his illness 
lintxl such removal ijatoinette Hxanphrey, besides caring for her home 

"iwc x^t^^^^ aeit;. a9« ©a.|j4j9« ,*«fA #^. l)i^...^Jtaisl 

Jpt«l oi *fcsa©«f i|sal>vt*iiu> lo iL4Xi.j»i£ ©£[?' i-fsdi \mM i£tfivv ^vxX oj btsimli 

,5Se£ dl ■isfftie.fc; ' . b-wiXiBR XA«ifi?*0 aiofiiXIi ®rf^ iltfJtw .1n&«nj;oXqiff9 
iiiil# jBto^'i ?€*£€Mt 'i* noieneq 'viXxf^float « fedTi^oo^ ©jf euoii ifoJLtbfir 4»#Js 

au^ tasaJawoTq 618«©to1:a- siT;? uo \'\..Ql nl b»ia»%» ail s.-:,^;'£^'-^ iso^owd mii 
©gboX a we^ *Oe'§X ,X y;l*iraAli -^ ^^-leaeMr x^^^f*"©® £# « sb XXaw 

-jHX2tis*i ajriv/ HOXi.iFOJ:Xi'i"« airi «3'a' uKO'fliiin Xjs^tfuoO aieniXXi s/id- dibn 

§a%9\^' -^jXeviaaorfgoTq: ewiebscf iloiiiw ^taW^igja aiutX^'c*^] ssfiiaib a'noa 

5i3ta assX bffjS sbnsiS tUii lo aau XXjb ^XXjsoi^ojg*^ ieeX ©if x^J^^^^"^ llims 

«fuu&09^ «BSeX ^0 VSSI al ieiti ibtXtntht BBhXq.X»d « aXcfjs'xirocX n^ soBoecf 

os^iioO odi £i;l ;rm/os>oB :£Bu%d s^cciTjse aXxi &jxr{ aii ^f^XdibAoo Qld lo 

-aiJiu. atm ejlaoqeb s^jsm ;fjSsJ^ asd'^j!.:. I'dxacfXA i8ri;^0'xcf 

1©** r;i iarii liaQbeosb Ito IXarfsd" ni Tciaaasosn wariw 8Xsw£i;6 

•■afti3*E? 0cf c^iii/oooa auitacf eixi Jiul* bercXasb YsxriqitttiH asffiel «es©X "io ^Jxaq 

a^*8X£«S# 9d^ w9Xbdiiw xs'^ixIqaurE ite^LA. fees afxiBtf ts^^bX a o* bSTCitslt 

iaiii jsUisS o;ts;J& avo-rt) sjsb^JoO &di d» Jw/ooo a 9ri;t nl asxf* eoncXscf 

rfrujoffliB Jisrf* "io 000«Sf. b«*i:s©Q9b xordqpvR J-i©tfX/v tOeex ^S \;'iBJ«rf»* 

j-.iW'iT ^?> iiHisff BioiilXXI-X«{^n90X;tHoO kdt cJ: Jni/oooj?! e^nir.sB s fll 

•xs^isX ajdJcom XjBisvaa ^arfcf |oa»o «Jtrf JJJt b»BS<jo sri rfoixlw ,x«sq:«60 

boTO«©i a«w ^©trfqaiixii asms!. ,t3ffJ' jo-Jaaeil;* bsbfejs itS9boo9b lo «9ft3« tfW 
disoH 9di oi Bisaars l»x»ifi £££8 in omod aid utoil xatdsimsjE »K rulot xd 
aaenXii eixl 16 aoiifqreofll ari^ aioi'i *M* iXSex «X ©nwT, aaXtfcnwooI toI 
•fltod -xwt ■sol 8«i^»«> aabiaecf t ^IsiitqtrawH Qiisaioiru^ L&vomet rfoi/a Xiijw 


and huslDand and five children waited on and took care of decedent; 
that in addition to not "being reqxiired to pay rent for the cccupaney 
of the Drexel avenue premiEea Tsy their fardlyj either /.Ibert or 
Aaatoinette Hitmphrey received the J.83.33 monthly pension of decedent* 
as 7/ell as the monthly garage rent* amounting at first to :i?ie and 
later to 514* for a considerahls period prior to June 1, 1951 1 that 
certain payments were made out of same in decedent's "bshalf j that 
after James Humphrey's removal to the Home for IncuraTalee a hill was 
filed in his "behalf in the Jirouit court for an accounting and injunc- 
tion against Albert Humphrey and the Continental-Illinois Bank and 
Trust Company, which alleged inter, alia the refusal of Alhert Humphrey 
to turn over decedent's hank book to hio and prayed that the joint 
savings account in said bank he turned over to James Ilxunphrey, that 
Albert Humphrey should he ordered to account for the funds v^dthdravsn 
froa said account and that he he ree trained frcaa making any further 
withdrawals from same; that thereupon .\lhert Humphrey retained the 
law firm of Leesman and Hoemer, v/hich filed his appearance in that 
cause; that Albert Humphrey and his attorney, Irwin W, Boemer, met 
at the Home for Incurables in .HUg\«5tj> 1951, with John E» Humphrey 
and A* ¥. Grlaskay, attorney for Jiames Humphrey, in the room occupied 
by the latter, who was then confined to his bed, and discussed the 
pending proceeding and the differences of the parties involved thereiaj 
that as a result of that meeting the parties agreed to adjust the 
matters in controversy between them; that -^JLbert and Antoinette Humph- 
rey, whu had continued to occupy the premises on Drexel avenue without 
paying rent therefor since Jaaiss Humphrey' b removs.1 to the Home for 
Incurta,bles Jime 1, 1951, then viront to the office of Mr# Roemer, v/ho» 
af csj.- a full discussion with them of the entire situation, drew up 
a «"ritten agreement, '/ifhioJa Albert Humphrey signed; and that said agree- 
ment Mdth the signatures attached thereto was as follows! 

' lUn^b^tiBb 16 o*t«© atoo;t hita na b^ikmr aa*xblhi'o ©vit baa bXLsrfsjjd: bxus 

^Arf* ii<Stl ,X anuX otf Tcliq feol-sftq; oXeffliobienoo :c&;rsX 

&Kjb 3£e«g: aJtowiXII-Ijs^ftsjttl^lisicf) s«Ei feicus t^'^aJJ'^ JtcecfXA i&t&is^M tuoki 
XOiAqmsU i^&€lk t6 X-jBWls'i: Mi sA-^JLtiMk^^'^^^^^ £oidn %xaaqmoO iairsT 

9if* b&iiiis;i^a X^-iM/qp:^ ^-EscfXA iioq»0TE«axfl 3^i£f;J jeoca aoi'i eX«w«Tbil*iw 

if-Bfl^ ni ©o«.?Jt.S!Otq:« sM feeXll i^feii&r ^lessiSQa 15>«js waemm&l In ai'xi'i wbX 

*©{« it&mso^ »W nt^rxl ,■^02:0 *:f« atri S»as vs'iJ'^l'KifH i^istfXA isiiit jsaw^so 

■^siiigmuS ♦!! tatoZ dilv «X£W t^avgifA Ki «aX<fs:t»aKl 'lot smoH 3ri* #r; 

£)aXq;j;ooo mtot &iiS nl « ■^oidqsut/H a©ffi/iT, tol xi3m%tiii£i <iY,3^'sgi3X€ . V- «A bsta 

?0i0x©fi^ &©YXov«i &bli%aq »di aO s^ofie'xelElii) ©lit ftiijs gnifcoeoorKi aaiSfitdq; 

^uodiin stjsmy& lexe^a no eoates'xcj s^iii YQM-^o© 0,1 feflwrii^fnoo fcjBif ciiw «!•« 

(OfCw i-xsiRso™ riM lo afiJCt^o atl:f a# ,#skow tit'tU «Xf.eX «X oru/t aaXtf^'jtjuouI 
^tf weifjr ,fi©JsJ««*ia ©iX^na <&ifd lo ssmili diJm uoiseuoaXb XXtl a 'iSs^lB 

"THIS A{Fiii:JMEl!TT , SSade this 25th day of Augast- A. r. 1931, 
"between JAMI2S HnilHIFIT, of CMcago, lilinoia, of the first p-.irt, 
and .'iIBlST HUMPHREY, of Chicago, Illinois, of the second part,, 

"That the said Ji^UES HUMPHRI3Y, for the consideration here- 
inafter mentioned* agrees to permit sMi:2:T IIUiM-u^Y, v/itli hia f affii-ly 
to reside in his premises knoim and: escriljed as Ho» 8333 Drexel 
-iVenua, Jhiop^vo, Illinoiti, duriufc the life time of the party of the 
first part J^iiOS HUMPHHiSy, without paying any rent for the use of 
earae. In oonuideration ■.vhexeoi, &lxe i^aid AZSSR9 iruiL?i-i£'.i.vT hexelay 
agrees to deliver to the party of the first part deposit hook Ho, 
32090 issued "by the Ctontinental Illinois Bauk & Trust Company stand- 
ing in the savings accoiuit, in the joint names of the party of the 
first part and the party of the second part and s. waiver or release 
or withdrawal slip duly executed of any rights, or claim to the 
funds BhoTivn on deposit rcprecentec; hy ssid depoeit book i^o« 33090; 
BO SL8 to place the full title to said funds in the party of the 
first part as the B?sie is the cola property of the party of the 
first part. 

"That the party of the second part further agrees to 
deliver all rents to he collected by him from tenants occupjring 
the gara.ges in spid premises, to the pr.rty of the first part. 
Also take care of all necessary decorating and cle?ining 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 to 
the party legally ezititled to same and all his rights or claim 
of every kind and nature shall cease to said premises under the 
terms of this agreeiseat. 

"IT IS i'UKlHMl agreed hy the parties hereto that the 
suit entitled J.vil^i^ Iim!D?SC:]iY vs AI3:j^T HUMj^alKiTr, et al., pending 
in the Circtxit Court of Cook County, Illinois, case No. B222129, 
shall he disniiesed iidthout costs, when the above mentioned funds 
have been transferred to the party of the first part by the party 
of the aeoond part. 

"IT 13 vUxRTHim agreed by the parties hereto that in the 
event the said LB'SFT HUMI?HP"5nf, party of the second part, fails to 
fully ocmply with the terms of this agreement, then his right to 
reside, with his family, in said premises shall cease and terminate. 

"IjS uITNEBb ^lECRSOF, we have hereunto set our hands and 
seals the day and yesr first above v\Titten« 

/kISEKT HimPHRSy (seal) 
Signed, sealed and delivered 
in the presence of 

lilrs'iin '■; . Ivoemer 
Harold 3. Kastengren»* 

Appended to said written agreement was the following instrument and 

the signatures thereto* 

""Chicago, Illinois, 
Augn-xst 25, 1931. 

We, the un<3ersij«ned, hereby acknowledge and agree that 
3mJ^> HUlSPHI't«rr is not indebted to the undersigned for any sum of 
money, for his care, support or msintanance up to the present time. 


It was also undisputed that the foregoing written agreement 



tXeeX ••! »A im^uA 19 X^'^ *J^2S! a^ri* sbM «Ti 

«.tXAq beooos s-ili to ,8io«iXlI ,03««>MO lo ,Y'--Ui'»^UIi . >«fl 

^----je^^n s!i ^^^ z^t:'- "in^'^ i^^ 

m..Xo -xo ^*ifei^ «iri -ti^ ^«^^ ^..^oi bHlcy:^n^ v;I.r..^(.I v. ..q orij 
oii^ lobnw asaiKs'iq bias oi^ sa^so XX.'»iiu s'- ' l^'l^^bi 

ijio^q ori* x«f *^a. *atX'i dil* io Tc;»trfKi Oil* e* be; ' "'^afri^o 

0* ali^l ,*-x«fI bmcae orfi ^o «W«TH^ITin3E T:^Si;aX... fcXsr^ ,Qf£o ix.^Yf 

Jtoe obtiBii T.SSO de& oju T-rxi 9w , »:o 

(Xsaa) YiiiJH'i-. 

vorfa #s'iiT: X3©X ^'WB ''&»*> ®^ aXeoa 
&®r£Svi:X9b bns bsX-csa «foof::-. 

,aXoaJ:XXX ,03BoixiO" 

signed loy AO.lDert Humphrey and the v/ritten ackiiewledgjnient "b-^ Ai'ba't 
Humpbrey and Ms wife that James Huraph-rey was not indelated to them 
were forwarded hy laail to decedent* s attorney August 25, 1P31| that 
said agreement was not executed "by James Humphrey because the ftirther 
question was raised as to the right of Albert Humphrey and Ms family 
to occupy the premises without paying rent in the event the property 
waB sold hy decedent during his lifetime; that it v/as mutually agreed 
that another contract be executed in lieu of that of August 25, 1931# 
heretofore set forth} thcj.t suoh other contract, drafted by attorney 
Roemer and executed by Gilbert Humphrey October 1, 1931, was 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 lie may do ao *** and if at 
any time during the term of this Agreement the party of the first 
part sliall obtain a purchaser of the same he shall give the party 
of the second pa,rt notice in writing to vacate ynd deliver up 
possession of said premises to the party of thci first psirt, but 
Bald notice not to be {riven before the expiration of Twenty-four 
(24) montha from thie date;" that tMe contract waa signed by 
James Humphrey by hia murk, which was witnessed by Attorney Roemer j 
that a second written acknowledgmexit that James Humphrey was not 
indebteo to them, vjhich was practically identical in language v/ith 
that attachc-d to the agreement of Auguat 25, lSol» was executed 
by Albert and Antoihette Humphrey on Septemb&r 30, 1931, and appended 
to the written contract executed October 1, 1931, when the latter was 
forwarded liy Attorney Roemer to Mr, GiaBkay» attorney for James Humph- 
rey, together with the savings depocit book issued by the Gontinental- 
Illlncis Tajik and Trust Ocmpany in the joint names of albert and 
Ja^ee Hmiphrey; that, notwithc tandini, the execution of the written 
contract by himself and James Humphrey on October 1, 1931, and, not- 
withstanding the written acknowledgment by him and his ^fe that 

itXvfi. \:rf -^n^mSil^^Lvum-^os!', asHl-xv t^tf.^ fine ■^o5riq:trau3i JteefXA -^tf bsngia 
Y;Jx0q;O5t<3; BSiH tsi^- ^rl *Ksi S«i:^«q *coii*i-* ne&tms-: 

■^tMjq ail- . • " '' - EJ:;:3J-cfo ilBlie dtjsq 

baijnsqoLfi I)£U3 iX£ex tOS s&ctoo^ijea ao TC©*£d<pafH sitailioJaA box ^nsefl \. i 
aaw asiijiX ©ri* jtitsiiiw tXCex «X aetfotfoO b(iivoe>x9 itosriaco aoiilrw 9tli oj 

-i^on «5c:j3 tX<iCX «X rte«^oJoO r'^ •.-=..>,'-.„,.,.' ..._ r .,,.. " r ;;-.-„ j:^ ^^T ^fo/^^^fnoo 
&ftxii e^jf*' aiii '-im' mi-r( .f . 


decedent was not inde^btod to thea, Allsext Hujnpiirey notified the 
Continental-Illinois Bank and Trust Company in writing October 
7» 1931, not to pay over to Jaiaes Kuiaphrey the money on deposit in 
the afore paid joint surings aecouiit aa aho7;n "by the tank s&vlxigg 
pass 'book theretofore delivered to decedent' b ettornsy "by Mr» .^ioesisr 
in behalf of fcaid Albert flusaphxey, but to let the matter be dlspoaed 
of by the court in the proceeding then pca<Ungj that pursuant to 
proper notice, Leetman sjid P.oemer withdrew as attorneys for ..Ibart 
Humphrey in saic! proceeding ..oveaifcer 14, ISvdi cht-t en order of de- 
fault was entered therein ag&lnst Albert llujaphrey for Ms failure to 
file on answer to the bill of oomplaint and thereafter a decree was 
entered iJovsmber 25, 1951, ^vhich found that the fund of |1,783 caa 
deposit in the joint savings acocant in the bank was tiie sole 
property of James ilumphrey and ordered the Continental-Illinois BanTs; 
& Trust CoxapeJtiy to deliver said fvmd on deposit to dececlent; thsit in 
DeceB3ber, 1931, Albert Humphrey and his wife, Antoinette Hujophrey, 
arranged to lease the premises at B3S3 Drexel avenue from Jamaa 
Huirphrey from January 1, 1932, at a rental of f20 a month, wMch 
they pcld up to May 1, 1932; and tl-iet they continued to occupy said 
preaiBee without paying further rsnt un'.il they moved out of same 
in Deoeraber, 1932 • Jasn^.s Humphrey having died May 26, 1938p letters 
of adminiBtratl on with the will annexed of his estate were granted to 
John P.. Hutiphrey July 12, 1932, and aa heretofore stated Antoinette 
Humphrey's claim against decedent's estate wae filed i^'ebruacy 16fiy33« 

At the close of olaimant's case when defendant presented a 
motion for a directed verdict in hie favor, claimant admitted through 
her coiinnel her inability to prove the specific contract allejjed in 
her litotement of claim but insisted upon her right, v/hich the coux't 
susjtained , to recover for nursing services rendered deceased on the 
basis of a quanttjiKi meruit under the averment in her &tatement of dl aim 

.'J3.xivy»«i,, jlja,^ a4* apt , ifflroii« ai» *ii«oag,» agnxv-sja ^isloji &ia39-sol>a 9rfJ 

osuotiuxi ea' -icj^.^ 3ii;f i©X ©it .*i«f tides' :aiq:attjli iTiacfXA'-J&'iawf- to IXaarf^cr jxi 
,;jxdX'. ^o'i. 3Xt>ax(^^a a» vt9%S^iJffi iaai«03l fo£i» namaoeKlE ^ooijoxi "SoqoTq 

• i* o'iiiXia't *Li 10 't y,&riiqmUfi itMLk JsxcLesfi MlsTsxft hti^ism aaw ^Ijtr«l 

8«w ©»'X06b i-; x&i 'iSi'xsiv i:i:.«X<5EiOO lo XXicf sri. 3li\ 

:'.tuiS. alOKJtXXI-Xa^nsoiifccO ®£l;f bs-xabio &«« x^'^^i"^ 6©a(jB\. lo x*^9Q0^<I 

ni ^mii {imb4b9h oi ilBpq:ih no bmsJ, bl&si 'x?>vtl»b o* ^nsqaioC i 4 

^X^-adqwijE 9iSr:aLo- < iff btta x^'xAatsaM ttaiflA «iS9X ixaaaisosCI 

61ea "viqiiDt)!? 03 5-^^ijnJ::?Koo \oiCc> iitd4 hfia tticQl «X tqsM oi qtr fttaq; ^orfi 
8ra«a Ito iuQ bsvora ■^-'iU Xi.ffur ^trisT ^arfJiiat aai^jsq Jjjoric^itt'- assimaaq 

oi baiaM's^ ©taw »*«5«9al£[ lo t^xmuxa XXiw ari? ifiiw aoliBristaha&^s lo 

»^;S§X?©X '^:te«i:ti'9'':' ' " '. d >' . . ♦Jcdb9oo& wSKijaa-a aixsXo s ' y;©xri<5;attfH 

fi-_;i;ciirfcf boJJlnibfi itumixSo t^OT-. V' .?: Soio'xov baios^ilb a nol noijom 

a± bs^aXXa i^OBtfsan^ olTtioeg?) &.-...i f-voxq c,-' — ^ ■■• r '- :' ■ r- '• '-■-' ":-.-; jr-, - rf 

ftri* «b £>»BiJ«©»& iwaafenor: aaoxT'.'^ia nnxs-r^a -ro :. 'T-r/oas C'.c'- , bsnisijaws 


«f or work and labor and for moneys advanced "by her for the use 

of the decedent." 

Defendant contends that the court committed reversi'ble 
error in giving the following instruction to the jury at claima*t's 


"There has "been offered in evidence "by the administrator 
herein a certain dociunent "bearing date 3epteBfl)er 30» 1931 ^ pur- 
porting to be signed "by the claimant herein, /uitoinette Humphreys 
and her husband, wherein it is recited that she has no claim of 
any nature against James Humphrey for hoard or lodging or 0tS«rwi8e 
on said date* 

"If you find from the preponderance of the evidence howeTer 
that at the time of the execution of said document hy her there was 
pending in this court a certain suit for an accounting "between her 
husband and s?id James Hiaaphrey and aleo that negotiations were then 
pending between the parties to 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 
j\ntoinette Humphrey did tigu said document \»'ith the understanding 
and agreement, if there was such agreement, that the same was not 
to be delivered to James Humphrey or his agents and w'as not to be 
binding or valid on said Antoinette Humphrey until said suit had 
been dismissed and said difforenoes adjusted betv/een the parties 
thereto, and that said document was signed by iaitoinette 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 Jejnea Humphrey by 
said claimant Antoinette Hximphrey nor her husband or by any other 
person for him, with her consent or a,uthorityj and also th£i.t said 
document came into the hands of James Humphrey or his agents ia 
violation of snt contrary to the order and dii^ection, if my, of 
said claimant and her husband and against their will and consent} 
Then if you so find from the preponderance of the evidence, you are 
instructed that Antoinette Htonphrey 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 court*" 

Ihere the evidence is conflicting as to seme of the material 
facts as it was here, it was particularly important that the instruc- 
tions should be accurate and it is elementary that all instructicms 
to the Jury should be based upon the evidence. ( Lyon s v. Bye rson & 
Sony 242 Illo 409*) This instruction ws.b not only misleading and 
confusing but it stated the facts inaccurately and v;as calculated to 
improperly detract frcm the evidentiary force of claimant's writtun 
admission against her interest and to caiise a misunderstanding in 
the minds of the jurors as to the veight to be given same. The 

"♦?«®foaoe5 9x£^ Ito 

-iwq «X'-:^';X <tO£ -xgdisia^tcrfjS aisb sfiit.sfivo' d' nam; -.;«'! rjl£sd"i.<^D .-*(■f^>^•■r ■■■,,■{ 
1:o .0.!:pId on .a.tjrf srfe ;! vlj &s*iofji si ;Jx n' « ■•-riotfewi- • 

idJsfi 5x33 no 
90ii&blyrs 3jr£* 'to»6ii{? ux>if. btii't i3o\ Jl** 

ii ^ bii*j aXwiOi- cd^ $ hss bias o« jiifXd+Jsq oxfjf aaowi^fi 

\ <irrm 11 t3fjone>':^'»'^:t!tf^ r^ri-^r) fl&tli iaiS^bB oS ban 

.■; . r'j sttii to ®f". ■ mQ'x.t ball oaXe u&x ii ... 

6if oi aM TO .. . tM fee*?;., ...'■ cJ 

b^si ^^wtv -;i^s i.Xvi-J "^liasxfqMuH Pvfi'Jii.Lcjiw. »>xx::; no biX-cv 10 ^xijioxu^/ 

-'a aaw iviQ^ioob oins i osii fefta t0s3t^}iU' 
; noo fii &aa nooToxl;) eoxi.f'XX»:c ni ^IsXoa 

j.^j.a oj;>:,,-. ..•i./:.< t-.i;;; .i.o so^ '^^di moil 5Bil oeX^=i j/o\; 

bum |fe- \n« 'ii ta»©a'. 'zon b9aBXiaai5 ^on aBW 

%d ■%s>tii:;j:..!!.:. -■osui'i, bisQ oi boi* .•x.'.'i- > ^Oki <' b hlij'a ifnii 

•mdiQ \;na x^ "^o bftBtftswri iml '£eit vs^^rfcrgajK ti. ajalBlo &x<sa 

oi/iu d^l3 oalij t)X**i r' ': " -' fU.xd tot ao:y--i_ 

"io t'>ifB '1.1 i^noLio(rxj... .,.-..i .V v-iu A' \:.;. ,..uoo .ano lo noJt.t,?..I' -' ,- 
jindcsis-oo b£iB III^ rtJfcsiJ^ *anJb^5,/i bjtia hxiecfawjrf red btis )fmmt%£o t 

9XB uo\ ^&oi'i!ib.v: ■: &di Tco »arujiy5r'"-- "" - ''.- mizl bttll oa wo^j; Ix ;x. .;■'.! 

i'tQYQo^it Qi ii&Jiixitid oskwisdict el axle bebivo^q ^bsclsinoo 

♦♦♦^•ujoc arli 'xo ai:jo.l^otfT:f.::nJt &ns sonsbiv?^ o: _ 

~ai,' ..:.;?■; X i9ff:t it.rff;? .titii^^TogEtl ■^i.^Xusl^'!:.?-,. : .t ^oicexl'sflw itl «.'? a^osl 

Qsalioy' -Cx.3*xjsxff9Xe al ^i »*»u^ biBitio66 sit blaoiSti nno±& 

A mtt r:: . . /. ., , .aoxxoblvn erXJ noqij bnn.rtr s<f bXlf©iffl XJ^i^t <'^'^-* -* 

ai Snlbrwsjai9&nixaiia js ©awao 0* biiR ie-ntt^ihl "E-^rf janlAsir nolaaiarbs 

document of September 30, 1931, referred to in the instruction 
as "piirporting to \>e signed lay the claimant herein, Antoinette 
Humphrey, and her hushand" did not merely purport to hare "been 
sigiaed "by /uitoinette and Albert Humphrey. It was imquestionalJly 
signed by them as part of the consideration for their contiJiued 
free occupancy of James Humphrey's premises at 8333 Drexel avenus 
and ior the dismissal of his proceeding against iilbert Humphrey* 

It will "oe noted from the oontraot of October 1, 1931, that 
decedent, James Humphrey, agreed to dismiss his pending suit and to 
permit Albert and Antoinette HumiJarey 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 account in 
question and "a waiver or release" "by Albert Humphrey "of any rights 
or claim to the ftmds shown on deposit represented by said deposit 
book *** so as to place the fxai title of said funds" in James 
Hxunphrey as his sole property. The contract expressljr provided 
that the pending suit was not to be dismissed until the bank book 
and the waiver by Albert Humphrey "of any rights or claia to the 
funds shown on deposit represented by said deposit book" were turned 
over to James Humphrey. Mbert 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 30f 1931 » but 
instead of delivering a waiver "of any rights or claim" to the finds 
on deposit as he had agreed to do iilbert Humphrey repudiated Ms 
written contract by notifying the bank in writing not to pay over 
such funds to decedent* 

The instruction in question was erroneous beoatise itpermitted 
the jury to make findings of fact, for which there was not only no 

basis in the evidence but whioh were directly contrary to the evidence. 

StoUtitniBtij: 9!ii Ri. o.t bwtialol lifCti: ,0£ isdtosJgecJ 1o ittsmuoob 

kftscf &-7Bsi Of *Y«r4lE»8i tX'*1»« tott hit Hws€^M r^ rcQidqmttii 

TfXd'jRisoitaotfpiflB' fejg* , uSqjBuE ttaiXA baa MiaftJto^oA \;rf iaftaifl 

bsiTni^xsoo rrl^rf* jol: noi*i3aabJtarjoo ©rid- lo itBq an a»dt xd Jbati'^iie 

oates'xq s<Tj9twli5ia«iii' a Off r^scjwooo saiEt 

♦■^etrfctaajfe. SlftraufXii tswiASSJ© s^iii&e^ooiq airi lo Xjaaaj:fflai& axi* %el bm 

©fjiar ioii^ hK& xBidquaM »ii@tt±oiaA bisss ^locflA iimxm 

a}. *'en ^jxwj Sfli"'CBq iuoditv *** assliiiisiq eM pi 

X^-tdqmE assf. .soiSaaabiscoo 

89W.S3X. ni "abfafT: bXBH 'to aX*i«f Iltf'i &di oojsXq o,-f a» oe **^ jfooU" 

ijelMTO-sq ^XaR©aq;x9 Josx^ec . ,: rstioxq sXoa aid oa ^sixlqiHaH 

jSooti" :^KBd" 9iC;^ XJ;.tf.w fesaaiaj Lsjq gjctfcnaq axl^ ^srid^ 

b»^ttliWiO xlxssml aid bsm ifsxriqismH irsfSSUi. «\8id<iEas'B. emtai oi 

tQita telaimU ino"! -^nlx-^ii ivotlit*} asaimenq Biii 'io xoncquooQ liaii^ 

3«oIb Se'xsrlXsfe i)fi3 beJwosx© saw inBiinoo 9x1* nsrfw ,xeex tX iscToJoO 

d'wd' (sX:SGX <0£ TocfBiyosCI Xi#m; « "^©"XiiqiaiTH aMJ^sI. o;f ioocf simscf sriif ili-.iw 

abnul euii ©S *flt£«Xo to p4jc£aJ:^ Y^-b '^o'* ^©tI.isw c axxii.;j»viXsb lo bBaiani 

aid bsi^aifei/qat i^awtqiuuH JnetfXA 05 o* basi^js bjaii eri a* *iaoq»& no 

levo "^jEq od^ toti snl^iaw rrl slfisd' tidi -gsiix'^tioa y;cf #oaa*noo ce#*liw 

titaebsoob oi abtust doiss 
bniiim'^rxiifl oawBof«cf ai/ooxjoats arw ooXJaswp xal uciiouxi sat sxiT 

on -^tXriO ion aecw arroxiJ lioiiiw rro'i ^Jojul lo a^Rlbait satsm o^ '^Tut ®^* 
.ooflyMve oild' o;} x^-k^^^oo ^X^oyilft ©isw tCoMw iutf ooflehlvs ©xl;t nl aiaacT 

• 10=. 

At the time claimant and Albert Huiaphi^ey signed the document 
■with which the iastruction is conoerned. acknov^edgiag that 
decedent v/as not indehted to her or her husToand for anj/thing, 
the negotiations for the adJuBtment of the differences 'between 
the parties and for the dismissal of the pending proceeding had 
Iseen concluded and the agreement reached in connection therewitli 
had "been signed by Albert Humphrey after it had been reduced to 
writing by attorney Poemer» who represented Antoinette Humphrey 
and her husband. It v?ill 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 
same was not to be delivered to James Humphrey or his agente and 
was not to be binding and valid on said /mtoinettc Jlumphrey until 
said suit had been dismissed and sijL d differences adjusted between 
the parties thereto, and that said document was signed by .intoinette 
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 arrangement or agreement with 
anybody* The very purpose of their lawyer in securing the signatures 
of Albert and Antoinette Hiuaphrey to the document w^s to forward it 
Kdth the contract of October 1» 1931* to Jajnes Humphrey so that lie 
also might sign the latter* The written aciaiowledgmont by both 
Albert and ;\atoinette Humphrey that decedent was not ind3bt<3d to 
them in any amount or for anything was an important factor in ihe 
transaction suid constituted a material part of the can£>ideration 
for the execution of th