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

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

i^J^^AGO 



^VOClAt^ 



'^''^-^nkH 



ll^ .<^. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

CARL!: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 



http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat305illi 



•^■V' 



li7^q 



Q '61 



BOUND. 



7\ 
40630 O-^ 

TS&A 0*¥Ii)^iSe Ad«iiii«tr?ftrix of the I ) 

Istate of Seott aftTiilson, Jr., 4eee«4e<l, ) 

A ) A?ri&t raoa 





(Uefead^ntl) .-.:eileea. 305 I. A. 1 5 7 

this is an sotlon at law bftseS uposa tta« attrsctlve Buiaaaee 
theory by th« piftlntlff, sdainiatrRtrix, sgainat the dftfeadants to 
re«ov«r daa-^ges for th« wrongful d«f»,th of soott ?>?»vidson, Jr., rx 
•i^iJLd le«8 tlisn tea jre rs of nge* At the eonoiusicn of the vlsiatlffi 
ea«ft tiic eourt -iireoted the jury to rstura *? verdiet in fnvor of 
the d«f<?a<Jsjata, and It is froa this judgsusnt eatsrcd uurausat to 
•aid TeraiQt that th« viinintiff 9ppeaLB« 

The pleadlaga allege th«>t the d<@feadnat« were operf^tlag 
****- elevated tyalns aear the iaters^ottoa of Vit^lRin street aad l^lead 
avenue in the cJity of Chicago, at suhst^Bti^Uy grouai level aad 
tfcat At the 9»ld plpoe there wrb h puhiic plsyjprouad la»edl«tely 
jdj«»eent to the Tl^t-of-w«y sad thJit the defffninata* tri^lae were 
propelled by eleetrlolty, reoeiviag the electrloity fro« aa exposed 
third rail; that oa June 16, 1935 a barrel containing apikee w«t 
tituated on the right-of-w«y between the aeeoad !5nd third rsila of 
two a4N?Hrst€ tr^oks and th«t the plaintiff's inteetate, ^ boy of 
aloe yeaxa and seven anaths, ««at upan the prealaet, nttrneted Ijsy 
%h9 apikee and the r^ilromd, eto«, and caaw to hie de«?th by coaiiag 
in contact with a^id third rail; thnt the defeadsiata t»ere neglig«at 
la view of the attraotive mjiaBBoe afores";ld by !E?!intilninir nn 
iaproper feaoe ?rouad aaid preaiaea^ asid feaoe beiag a so-ei>lle4 
h^ wire fence, th^t ia to any, haviag aeahea la which the 8tT?«ada 
ran vertloally and horl«oBt)aiiy ^ith atrsads «ore thaa three Inches 






'^ 



Id I .A.i dWti 



fcn Z 



X fellUO 



bf: 



w-li oo i fit ;ll«>t brl^t 

•f-rffi 



3 

aj^ft* fQTmlm^, a virtual i«idder for caiidrea to ciiab over. 

fh* AefendBnts filed nn answer 4esyiag th& 9!»t«rl«i,l eliega- 
tlons except tli« owneirshlp of the pT«j^»es# tk« cr^sr^ittioa ©f the 
t7!»ins» t'ae der^.th of th« pl^jlatiff*s Ifiteetate and the heirablp of 
tli« latter* 

The f??eta that app^sr fr^i the evideiwe ^.re the defeRd^nta 
©psrnted 'What is oo^saonly ref«rr«<J to ns the Slevsited ^?aiiro®d» la 
ahi«ag«, th# undispteted evidenoe t«nde to show thrt th« plaintiff's 
intestate oliiiBed the fenoe and i^at apon the tri^eks solely to get 
spikes froJB b keg* XtsBedi^itely adjseeat to defend?5nts' right-of-^my 
there is i^« ftad has been for laore thaa twelve ye^rs last p^«tst a 
puhlie pl^ygTouad wh«re ohildren nre «Q<niatoiSBed to yiay, which r:i?»y- 
ground has n fence on only thre»p sides* but from vhieh children have 
aoeess to the »d;joining right -of -w*3iy, fhe purticul^r vicinity is 
la 8 thiokly settled residentigl distriet of Chie-sgo* The t>laiB- 
tlff's iffitaess Opea* n. boy who wn.9 with plr^latiff*® intest-^te, testi- 
fied thnt "Three of us boys ^ent up oa this b»alt of dirt, ?5ad 3cott, 
the boy that «ms kiiletU weat over to the keg. He reaehed dom into 
the keg %ad took soae r^ilroed spikes, then he brought the spikes 
over to his iKrother Chnrles* * * * then he o^^at b^ok to get sons 
■ore spikes out of the keg. A tr»ia vne eoaing <%nd he started to rua. 
He tried to get s«ay. He tripped over the third r^il.* The ywjngsr 
brother of plaintiff's iate8t5^i;e teatified: "My brother ^i-ent over 
the feaee aad up the b'snk to get the spikes. He os^ae b^ek aad f.$*tve 
a» sons spikes ^nd then 9?«nt up the hnnk again to get »&ms mote spikes. 
i guess he got exoited and started to ma sad tripped." 

the eoeiileat happened upon the defendants* r!?'ilrosd traoks 
between Virginia Avenue sad the north bmHoh of the Ohieago tiver. 
At the ^iat of the ^ooident the railroad tracks run en9% ^nd »est 
apoa aa eKbsdstki^nt. iiorth of the tr^^scks Virgiaia ivsaae runs in % 



< 



Vi4 



'-' ?)»«( hs< «Mr ti 9tttl^ 

';iili}J:rf« <; si 

:.£; ](oo# £MaF<!' yi mt 

, '«« #«%* ■«# feftlf* 191 

if na ttKis tw rnm •di 



Borth«^st«riy iireetion. fhere mre a@ streets runniBf? north &i^ 
soi3t]dk )»t*«#ji the river aad Virgiiiia AT€nu«» tirginis *^«ne€ eoSs 
at the rs^llro^i rlght-of-*^y« IsBsedlately north of the rl^t-of-tpay 
aai west of VlrginiR Arenue Is '^ tfl^jngul^r piece of groyssd. At 
Virginia Avei^e this trlangwlsr oieo# is 40 f€«t s-ide and tspera 
toirard tfe« west to nbout five fe«t ^ide '*t the Tiv«T. This trl- 
»ngul9X piece is bmioii oa the enat by firgini^ .veaue, an the north 
%f a pisygTound pnv'k, ^n^ on the south by n ribiht*f*of-^^y fenes and oft 
th« west by the river. The sise of thl?? psrk is IS? feet sertb 
*iid south by 135 feet deep. UurToundlng this plnygroijwi is » hog 
*lre fence 48 inches hi^, th-it is, the stmnds run vertioj^lly nmi 
horisontaiiy, in i»hieh the s<p«r« meshes -^re ^:bo\it 4 by 6 inches 
«p«.rt, it is suggested tqfc the plaintiff th'^t it selves virtually as 
ft ladder. In scwe plstoes ??l©ng the right-of-way there is a bs^rbed 
vire, km% th^re is no wire directly opposite the p^l«^yground» the 
rlght-of-wny is perfectly visible fro« the olaygrouiKJ iameAi<^tely 
to tut north* This right-of-r-^y oonaists of t»o tracks, one ^n 
eastb^Bd ^nd one n estbound traok, «ith n speolal live third rsil 
pcirailellng eneh tr?<ck. On iHaturdsy, J\me 15, 1355, 5»bo«st 5 P.M., 
itbout four ye-^rs r>go, the plaintiff's intestate, a bof nine ye^irs 
s^aa seven a^nths old - born October S3, li35 - together with three 
or four other little boys were opposite the right-of-w^y» They had 
played there before, on this occssion froa off the defend?^at8» 
right-of-»ey they saw «i bsrrel of spike-s betyeea the tracks, These 
boys were, G«©rge Kivin Oven, Jr., nine ye-trs old, Charles Q^vldson, 
Pt beotber of the deoensed, eight nr^ one-half ye^rs old; both of 
vhofli »rre s^itne^^es, ^nd Jack tissparo, Ihey oliobed over the fenee 
at % point sbout SO feet east of thfi bridge, fhe b-^rrel of spikes 
^as stw«t 2S feet cast of the bridge, Oh«rles Soott, hamrer, -ent 
through a hole ns'^jr the bridge. 3urr«mading this plsygrovmd on the 
south, west and north was a ssftll aesh arire fenot, 6 feet high. 






^^•' ttif 



i£ht«« Surf* ftO ,*t.:- ^ 

I ha" 99&^ .. - \<j 

.^^rff>ai. .'";■•.• ■■•■ udxIiL-odi 

3XX»1»S 



4 

At the tiae of the Mceident the pinintiff«9 iutest te 
lived mi%k his pnrejsts :?t the northes?st corner of G*iddlag» Street 
and Virglals Avci«ie» fh«y fora«rly hs.(i ii-e^ed on helsni at ^sokwell. 
Prior to th^t they hna lived in stn ftpartaent b^ok of the father's 
office St Heolcveil «tid Ireland, rlaiatiff's intestate had feeta 
going to ae&ooi for 3-l/JI yeara# a® ^aa ?» origjit boy ssd feadl « 
good standing in aoliool* fh« tracks cross Rookweil Str«!^t on tbe 
ground and there w*i9 s third r«tii iB«?%r the sidewmlk and a sign 
rending, "iianger - alectrie Ciirrent - Keep Out*. Plaintiff •s 
iateetate had to cross the traclca at aoek«^jLi fro« the str»et i^ere 
Itis parents lived, in goir^ to and froa eohool for 3-i/3i yesrs, 
there whb a sign res»ding, 'O^nger - Keep Out* at the tr«%elts %t the 
foot of Virginia Avemie. Both parent* cautioned plaintiff's intestmte 
not to go on th^ right-of-«tsy. Slia hrother testified; »I gueae 
he got exeited and started to r^n and tripped. In going over to 
the k«g he stepped over the third rail «ad in coasii^ haek froa the 
first trip he also stepped over the third rail*. The Owen boy snd 
the toother ©f plaintiff's intestate gave substantially the snw^ 
teetiaoi^ ae to hov the nocident happened* 

fhe defendants* contention is th't It rrts n neoeasary 

eleiaent of ~:i8,intiff»8 case t© show th«it plaintiff "a intestate ^aa 

rightfully at the pl»ce where the accident hitpoesMd ?».nd was not m 

trespasser »pon the preslaes of the def ndsnta. Otherwise the 

defe^ants oired hia no duty, except to refrain from ^riifully 

injurii^ hia. This rule is thoroughly established se the l$w ef 

this state appilcnbie to attractive nuismnoe c^^^ses as well *a ci^thers, 

the defendants point to the ORse of -oloyefc v, rublio Jervloe gg^. . 

S4a 111, 48^, ^liere the court said: 

"It is lilte??i®e the rule th??t the Q-mner of oriv-te gTovinda ia 
under tu> obligation to keep the» in aaqf p^rticvl^r i?t«»t« or 



er»*^' &■■• ' , ■ ■■Ilia 

Ctf«*i.<g .. --».t TStrf#OTv .%'";t&- ■ nj- nc w^i; •')# #on 

■"•: enjy' ;<« - ... . _.,j ^^_ ^^ 

£«■« 1^ ifflt-i'' » ■' " ■'■^' •>»« v«,i-- -^4 qXt* tf'C'Silt 

■— -■•* ..... «.^^.*«* a»ttlJ«i«i'' •'• ■''^■'f.'iotti mft 

^,... ^:(ij 9.1 fs.alia9itaio *«c.. -.-- ■''-■ -^''^ 



rpTOfff ' . ^PllSflrtJi 









conditieti to projsote tae 3 ) fety of tTeapasaexe, intruders. 
Idlers, b re lloens^ea, or ot&? re «^ho ooskb «pon the'e «fithout 
invitation, ©it&er «xpr©ss«d or laaiied, tfeis rule appiigs 
equally to ^iivlta eai ehildr€ii,» 

Tte# oouTt furtheT states in this c^n^z 

*?h« niie r«8ognire<l in this state =»« to iaiplieci invlti?tioa 
l9« th^'t Kliere th« owner of th« wreadsea awiist-'ins ^- d^jsgersxjt 
condition or tbing of such s cnsrseter th-^'t be m^y r«-i8on^;bly 
nntieip^te tli-;-t children, vtio by re-^son of tender ye^-rs ??r« 
Inti'-'-P^'tilB of exercising pro-Cser e-=-re for their own a-'^^ffty, 
nre likely, oecause of their childissh instincts, to be 
mttr«ct©d to the longerons thing and tb«^reby ex^osefi to a?*iigers, 
he is required to use re 1 soasi bie csre to arcteot them froa 
injury, rrovid«d it ia ^sho^n th t aueh dangerous conditloB or 
thing is so ioc ted «s to «'tt;rs(Ct ehiidren froa the street, 
piaygrousd or t'l?»0« 'Pherr they hnre «= right to b«, '4here 
such 3 » sgenoy is so located it eoiistltutea ?nn imoiied iQ;vit5',tl9& 
to suoh children to eoa* upon the presise't rad they '^re not, 
in i-^?^, eonsi'ier^^d trespassers. The rule does not mi-ply where 
the ©vner malntnins sotsething for his own use which, though 
dsngeroua, wovld b<? found by such children only by . oing upon 
the ar«aises Jis treaosssers. In other worig, to im^v^-iedly 
invite children onto the pr^aises it is necessary th-Jt the 
dmagmrfSHi agenoy, with its silurlag «Rd ntt tractive oh- rioter, 
be S0 piaeed sis to attract tae children there. ( .-ijieacraBott v, 
SiiTke. 3g.6 111, 40I; Qt. I^oiita, f^nd^lln sad T^-rre {|?mte 
]fiailroad ap . v, ..ell, 81 111, 76.) If there is suoh nn iaplied 
invlt^ition to g© upon the presalaes the ohiid ia not considered, 
in l^w, s trespaeeer but ^n implied invitee," 

fhe defendants in their brief state th'^t the undisputed 

evidence shows the plaintiff's inteat^^te oiimbed the fence nnd 

went upon the traoks eolely to get spikes froa the keg, <ind upon 

this queation George Oi»«n, Jr., n boy 9-1/'^ ye^rs old testified: 

* f© olimbeij the fence nenyest Lnij^rence sventte on the 
north sl-ie of the trmok. It -mu nenr the playground, .ve had 
plsyed on th*? r>lstyground, ths one just north of the elev^^ted 
trncks before this 3aturd<'y, and th t Siturl'iy afteriwwn '<^** 
sav * bftrrel of apikPs on the railroad* You could see the 
bft7r«l before you or«srled over the fence. It w«?s between the 
two third r'^ils. On this -(fternoon soot tie went to et soase 
spikes snd then, 1 think he brought them b-^ck to get soac 
acre s Dikes, 1 think r tr^^in waa coining ftad he got senred %nd 
he tripped on the third r«il,* 

It trouXd seea froa defendants* os-n brief, froa *hieh we hsve just 

quoted, th?»t the plaintiff's inti^stata oliabed the fenoe «tnd went 

upon the traeks solely to ^..et spikes from the keg, 

the trial judffH aade this st^jitea^ent in directing the 

verdiot: 






9 



u-r, i./ 



» I 

«<»X s\XHl fed «»Yb «A#«0 «%to«d aclivup uldf 



«0« t 






"I do th't n» a Hotter of l«f undter %lie evlieno«, 'snd on the 
ground thrt, in ay ©pinion, under simy deolaion« of thlg str t# 
«nd of other st tea, t^ere hsa b«ea no nttr«iOtiTe nui3i»nee 
proved by th« plsintiff tfe-^t tqvIA te»d to sliure a child ®f 
tender y« rs to go \ipoii the tr*?ok." 

i?ind this, of course, is the iamse here* the eTl<leitoe clearly 

emtn\ilk9h99 that the fei^e was al«»ut 4 feet hi^ of ^?o»ea wire, 

oo&sieting of vertiot;! wires Hbout 6 inches npmrt and borisoatstl 

wires ahout 4 inohes ?i|mxt, aad thst there «'>8 bo ether ©b8tru<5tioa. 

thaa the 4 foot fence, Thie «'?»s oorroborated by witnesses. 

In orrler to properly consider this quest ion it might be 
well to be guided by the expressions of the courts of appeal as 
to whut Is HB sittr?«otive nuisanoe -^ad what is the duty of the earner 
or person in control of Isude *»nd buiidiqgs to protect children 
from injury. 

In the esse of o^lesb^ v, ^ftropolit'^n ^est Side fcl, Hy^o<^ , 

319 111. pp. 2S1, *here chilAmuEi ?^ent into nn elevator building 

upon the i^reolses of the defendant, which ^?6 not proper}j protected, 

«e said: 

"^ do not agree with the contention th^t the f'lev-'tor 
Cannot »s a raatter of In.^ come under the doctrine of the 
ssttr^ctire nuisance cases. Attractive nuisances hnve been 
defined to be such things o<%ueing injury, left exrK>sed an'! tin- 
guarded, which are of such 8 character s to be an «»ttr«ction 
to children, appealing to their ohiliish curiosity snd instincts. 
•The oirtutr of Innd, where children i^re rtilowed or a.ocuastojwsd 
to play, pnrsrtioulariy if it is unfenoed, oust use ordinary c^re 
to keep it in nnte condition; for they being rithout judgaent 
snd likely to be dmwn by chiidiah curiosity into pI ces of 
danger «re not to be classed irith tresD-s^ers, idlers njod «er« 
licensees.* gitv of rgfcin ▼. ick^hon. 154 111. 141. • 

So, trhen we ooiws to acDiy this r\5le to the fsscts es they '?tttm%T 

froai thP evidence of the D3<«intiff, ^^c find th«t the rlght-of-^^y 

of the elevated r-^ilroftd, the defeni^nts in this cse, w^a fenced, 

la other «ords. It had a fenee four feet in height ?*long its right- 

of-s^ey to prevent persons froa tnsveiing utson it. 

la the c ae of seyaottr v. Onion atook Yrrds Oo. . ?,24 111. 

b79» the atpipeliaat *--;« sttrraoted by a pile of clay -^long the r^ilroj»d 






>Q»Sl Mil tJHf# SftlUiXclolltd 

/^ jro^:.' I to I<)Z#aoo aU a««t9<j| yo 

^ to •*«© irft al 

^fc - otai #.' ■ "-itff »1«5 .Qq". •IXZ ^'i^ 

,l)s ^ »j*» to otsjjiota ' »** ••^-u 

:hi#« mm 



1^ 



i j^i^ln Hi: Jt »cMi«t ft bad ti ^^brov rmdio at 



7 

trs-ek. K€ «*at epoa th« pile t© play aii<i iffelle so e»fi%gea, was in 

B9 daEHg^r. ^e the trfHin p«.3««d, th« boy no loBger ett:r^oted by 

tto b«ak of esrtili^ began to«ohlsg, playii^ ^Ith asd running alongside 

tbe sloT^ly moving ca7s« «^.iid flnj^lly fell under tfoes], sustaining tbe 

injury coispisined of» l*i« eourt there :^ld: 

"Here an eie&ent int?rw«'nc<S b«t?*eftn tlae -?eta ladueed by the 
ftliuresents of thfi cis^y pile suKi the injtiry, "ri?*, the awvemeato 
of the boy in pi oing Masself in contact with *»n4 In r«jnniiig 

aloagside tUe Of^rs," 

la further Hsov.s3i£tg the question isToived, the oourt gstd: 

"the proxiamte omnse of the injury in thia C"*9e v^-9 not the 
piXe of kXs^B nor any i.-^nj^er trith !^hich th« boy ^=^9 brought 
in cont?«ct ehile gr'?tifying jsny ouiio»ity or desire excited by 
that pile. The injury g.s proximately c msed by the moTetaenta 
of appellant in ol cing his hawls upon and in running nloa|i^3i4e 
the o«r«»* 

In the onse of R»«8«y ▼. Tuthill Mf>terinl Oq .. 33& 111, 
395, the court held th t if one engaged in sny oper?^tion isngerous 
to thoAe coming in eontsiot vt^ith it pernits ohiXdren T'ho are 
iftonpgble of appreciating the -anger to ooite upon the preaiees «ad 
es:po8e theaiselves to d%i&ger« he «ii«t t^lce suoh memne to prevent 
injury to then n» vill be effective or exclude them from the premises. 

So it is the rule th?t where premises beoose »ttr<^0tive 
to children it is the duty of the ov&sr of the preaiises to tn.te 
such steps to protect the children if they nse pejrttitted upon the 
prestiseoc or to b»rrriCQ??s or fence the presaiees so thst the ehildrea 
will not be able to coos upon the pre«i9<?8, and if they do so by 
clinbing such b'^rrio^ide or fanoe they become tresitsssers snd sin sotion 
*iil not lie for any injury that »ay be suffered by the child under 
such cireumat^nees, unless there w-^s a wilful or wanton act by the 
owner which would justify » judgjnent for injuries guat^ned by 
the child* 

But when we eons to consider the instant o^ise, the pur»os« 
of the pl«itttlff»e intestr^te, efter climbing the fence ,%nd getting 



f 






W.1 






.^ .•*■... - -■ :<k:,i *.l.Jli 



«r«s ,,,,.. ,.., 'j;'-<' vi.1^ %q\ 0|X #oJ? Xli» 

iti/?tii ?4j* fii* l;IuO» AtilAn %9£tVO 



?If* 



?.'j"-*fei"f! 'jf:* ^-^ti^zcj^ 



*Tiitat«>ic, 





Upon the rlght-ef- "ijr of the defe^f^ata* ^aa - as augr^ested «ad 

ar^e4 - t* g«t soaBB* rsilrosd a^ikes out of ^ teg *1xich It is clslaaed 

v«« attract i-re to children mad «4iioh i5t>8 near tb« pl'*ee in euftstion. 

Tb« efeiid did g«t the spikes sai g»Te tkea to hie brothey, who also 

teid emisied through an opening upon detendnnta* trsoJt, ^nd retvir»«d 

f<Mf tb« p«xpo«« of getting «ere spikes, rhen, e,« the facts iivJleste, 

be heaird %n eletr^ted train ooslng s>nd In order to ^vold this tr^ln 

he started to run and tripped over the third f'»11, vhioh carries 

the eleotticity to operate the road, ^nd «^:s killed by the electric 

shook, so that the faot that he >^^s attrt^oted by his ouri&slty to 

^^ obtain spikes nnd did get theai, 9«s not really the proxltsnte c^use 

of the Inji^ry, hut his running and tripping over the third rail, 

sjftd upon this question It <Blght be ip«ll to consider what our courts 

hnve »ald« 

Xm the ci?8e of Slaona ▼• ^ole v^lve Up .. mB 111, hpp^ 

388, the ei^se Involved the question of a double gate which opened 

sBd peraltted entrance Into the defendant's pre«lses» the plaintiff 

contends th^t the g>tes In the fence around the defend?int*s preals^s, 

by reason of their massive tind peeullnr construction ^nd the f^^ct 

thnt they i?ere aJl^sys open* unlocked and unguarded, ^Itho^gh there 

wes a look on thfi ^atea which v-iS n ver used, and by reason of the 

AiTther fact thmt the children In the neighborhood were allowed to 

play on the gnf's and on defendtsnt's prealses unhindered ;«nd «rere 

never forbidden to play on the g^tes and on derend<tnt*s preailses. 

It was incumbent on the defendant to pirevent the 'salntenanee of a 

d^tngeroiis instrumentality upon its premises \^ aeans of «hieh 

children of tender ^ge night i;^ injured, nnd upon the Question of 

llftblllty this court a^tld: 

*Xt Is essentlf^l in order to prove the liability of one 
who ffiS(int??lna a s©-onlied «ittr^ctive oula^nce, th- t the thing 
which sttr'^ct^d the child upon the premises, or something 



....».-. " + *- twr 

a. , . ^ - •iflr 

,-^v.^. ie •(MfVtfq wi# «o^ 

-1-. ■ -«jl„- ■: :,? ,r-c.T ^A$ 5t Tsao ot i^i:;l*?orfi» Aid 

1 irf? *«1 Wi 
Q r ioltm*vp mttii ««qw ten 

:bi?^ »T^t» ald# t^JtXicf«iI 

A BIclAJiSlMi 



insepsrsibiy con«cet#d therewith, he the proirla^.te e!»ue« 
of thft Injury. *« the Supyea* Oourt 3"ld In the e^se of 
Mojeraott v. ik>yke« n56 lil, 4ni, 4->6: 'It is ^ aeeesssify 
eiefecnt of the liability th-^t the thing which onuses the 
injury i« tesptlng to children «iai to oor.stitute a se^tns 
of tittraotin^ thea upon the oreaiaea which the owner shofuld 
nntioipiste,^ 

The evidenoe in t !is e^se shows th«t the hoy vrms net 
attTsioted by the ao-C'iiied gnte; th^t he ?*«a not standing on 
It nor playing ^ith it ^s is oh rged in the co9iplsint» 

4 gste is not inherently dangeroias ^^nd there is no 
larocf in this c ■s*' ns to »ho opewi^ the g«te or th^t the 
defendant kae^ th"t tne ,, - te -*» open, or srho moved the g;%t« 
ftt the tiwe the boy»8 fingers were injured, » 

It ixBoensn^Tiif follows th^t the plaintiff's evidenos 

de«s not est?ihli8h » enuse of action and the tricl court did not 

err in directing the jury ^t the close of pi'^iatiff's CF*se to 

find the defendants xk&X guilty and in entering jadgaent upon such 

finding. The jtt(%sent is sfflrssd. 

JQ&Hmm AfFlHliED* 



8SIZ8 K. SIJlUVAii, P.J, AliD »UM£, J, COiSGUH, 






I in ' ■<MBi 






?o; ' !;'» Ion a»o& 



TISA mrvnou, &d!«i»l«tr%trlx of the 
fftti^te of Soott T^sTidfson, Jr., '^«e«4«|!i, ) k^^mkt FROM 

e©0K eoniTTT. 



Company, % e^f^or'^tlo©,. 




A, A, apRA4?S ^ia B-,.1TT<^ I. Eas^v^.s in f^ P- -r \^ 



'"^® X o 



MB. 3mri^t irBSL dklivshj© the opisioi or Tai codht. 

This eottT't filed »iii opisloa la a suit vhleh vaa pending 
'-IMIINI «a appe*«l fey the ryl^iutiff, '^dsiriiatratrix of the Sietste of 
i^eott DaTidsofi, Jr., deee sed, fro* a jttdgaent for the defead'^ats 
ia an aetlon hf the pl^iiatlff to recover d^itmgee by reaeos ef the 
aeglitenoe eftre (fef^ad^nts in o^asing the death of the deceeei. 

The plaint if} filtd a petition for % r<»he&ririfr upon the 
ipro"and set forth in the oetition. The i>etition »r&e allowed mad 
thereafter the defendants filed nn uns' er thereto. 

After oeneidar^'ition f>f the iu*stlen» thi^t were involTod 

ead emll«pd to our «tittention, %e h.%v9 retohed the oonelueiori th%t 

the court will modify ite opinion ty etrlklrss^ out on the eeoond psige 

ef the oplnioa ifter the worde thre^ sides, "hut froa which ehilirea 

h^T soeeee to the adjoini]^ rlght-of-w^^ty, " so that the l^nfu^^ge will 

appear se followss 

"The f%ote thiat eppe^r fro% the evidence are the 
defendants operated ishst is ooaMiocly refer? 1 to ?js 
the .'ler tad '■:^-ilro-5dB in " hioagc. The undieputed 
evidence tends to shew th%t the pl-rintiff's 4a1»e#t-=5te 
oliahed the fenoe end went upon the tracks eoleXy to 
get spikee from a Iref. laaedii tely adjacent to dtfen-i- 
nate* ripht-of-way fn«r« ie now .^nd ha a bsea for sore 
th^n twelve y«'?re l*.et pist n public playp:round *herf 
child xea '^re aoemetofted to pl^y, whleh pl-iyE-round hae e 
fenoe on only three sidee." 

Had further, that «e will %dhere to the ©pinion herein ee «M>difie!l. 



Oi^iA^ 



V / •. ( ■•»■ I .1 i ^. [ ^.1- jf. ' . I ;; 1 



i C i>^ 



A* 






fitir *ii 



s^ittii^ia Sit- b*fHi JtoCi^ 









fi^jft ;7<^i:«sX9a«M» 9tlt l«4»)mT . ^:^l#8«»#e xoa •# fr«XX«» tac 

;i^ aa #;,-« ^.iXIl^ts t^ «<^«' ^ t'^XMai XXiv #1UMM» •HI 

■ M*ii» d^isis iMwrt! ty^* ,«*&!? 4»T«tt utx^t^ «ii# t«#l' ooiaicre »rft t« 






•"■S^^- 



*1 



.ai»Vf^i1 ismJtaiQfO »£</ ef t^tiftrtbf ril« •« t«Ar ,ii*ii#tiirt teA 



t 

flit J»<S««Bt «at«r«« for tb« atf^n* nt« Is mffliwea. 






t 



a eififf 



sstath: of iLLiNoig 

AI'Pl'SLLATE GOUHT 
FOiniTH DISTRICT 
OGTOBISH TiaiM 

A.D. 1939. 



TSRM NO. 7 



AGENDA 16 



GSROLD MOVING & WAjiEHOUSS ) 
CO. , a Cor 



■ / 

POTO?MC IN'^U 



•rppi^flon, ^^^"•'''^""""'^^ppeal frp6 



Apdellee, 

/ 




of the 
Coltuo^a 







'he Cit^ Cour%^ 
) / of 
The'tTfty oF^Safit 




Appellant. 



) St. Louis, Illinois. 
) 



305 I,A. 157 



^ 



STOSffi, P. J. 

On Jnne 19, 1937, the deferdant throng;h its 
general agent, who was a neighbor of and well acquaint ed 
with the president of apr>ellee, issued an insuppnoe policy 
to annellee covering six automobile truck bodies of a mov- 
ing van tyne against loss by fire, ^ald policy was in 
full force and effect on the 27th day of January, 1938. On 
that day a fire broke out in a building of appellee wherein 
four of the trucks so covered were garaged and the four 
trucks were totally destroyed by fire and the resultant 
cave-in of the building. Appellant refused to pay on the 
policy. Apn el leebr ought this suit to recover the amount 
of his loss. I5ach party is a corporation. When the suit 
was brought appellant undertook to defend on two grounds: 
first, that the proof of loss was not delivered to appelant 
within the tirae prescribed in the policy,- that Is sixty 
days frora the date of the loss: secondly, that that which 
appellee clf>iras was a proof of loss was not nroperly 
verified as prescribed by the nolicy. 

A trial was had before a jury; the jury found the 



issues for the plaintiff and assessed Its damages at the 
sum of Five Thousand Dollars. Motions for directed verdict 
and for new trial were overriiled by the court, and appellant 
brings this appeal, urging the two defenses urged in the 
trial court. 

On the 23th day of March following the fire, 
atjnellee delivered to the authorized agent of a'onellant its 
nroof of loss. Eliminating the first day, that is January 
27th, the day the fire began -- the fire burned for two 
days,- the proof of loss delivered on March 28th, 1937, 
was within sixty days from the tlwe of the loss according 
to any well known and established system of calculation and 
according to our Statute on that subject. (Revised Statutes 
1937, Chap. 131, par. 1; Char>. 100, Par, 6). Appellant 
undertakes to divide this time up into hours and show that 
the necessary hours to make sixty days had more than Inter- 
vened. This unique method of calculating time is not only in 
defiance of our statute, but is such a method which under 
the circumstajices which obtain here we would not consider 
at all unless we were positively constrained to do so by 
substantial authority. This we do not find. In our judgment 
there is no question but what this proof of loss was delivered 
on time. Furthermore, it was delivered to the agent who 
wrote the policy and who was a close neighbor of the president 
of aopellee. The agent received this, made no complaint or 
objection or suggestion, and delivered it to appellant. This 
agent was general agent of appellant; he wrote the policy; he 
came to the fire on the morning of the fire; he knew all 
about the situation and all about plaintiff-appellee and its 
activities. 

The second contention is that the proof of loss was 



#.: 



-;aIXfi».,'fTJ» 






:i«. BTf: 



f fi^r^t 



'•■••590' o;; 



,8"rofi- 



Jf,/? ft/*:? 5,;;o- 



.0 

ic 



not properly verified as the contract of Insurance pre- 
scribed, that Jt shoTild be, and was, therefore, Insufficient 
to amount to a proof of loss, and for that reason the court 
should have instructed the jury to find the issues for the 
defendant. 

The nroof of loss was signed "Gerold Moving and 
Warehousing Co. by E. F. Gerold" , and the affidavit thereto 
was executed by Mr.Gerold. In German Fire Insurance 
Company vs Grunert, 112 111. 68, the gupreme Court had be- 
fore it an affidavit to an insurance proof of loss very 
similar to the one at bar, and in passing on the signing 
of the proof of loss, where the same objection is made, 
said that the objection to aich proof is hypercritical. We 
are inclined to the same belief as to this objection. 
Apnelle had been in business for many years in East St, 
Louis. Mr.Gerold the president thereof, and My. Hanson 
the general agent of a-pnellant had been acquainted for 
approximately thirty-five years, and as said before, they 
were neighbors. Hanson had written the policy in question. 
His place of business was one block from the place of busi- 
ness of appellee. Together these two men discussed the 
question of the fire and loss, and In general the record 
shows that no person other than Mr.Gerold was recognized 
by Mr. Hans^on or by Mr. English, another agent of the defend- 
ant company, as having any official Identity with appellee. 
Under no circumstances could appellant have been injured 
by the failure of Mr. Gerold to write the word "president" 
after his signature to the affidavit. In Globe Mutual Life 
Insurance Association vs March, 118 Ill.App. 261, appellee 
swore to the proofs of death personally instead of as 
executor a?id upon objection thereto the court said at page 



180, "The a<i<lition of the word 'executor' to his signature 
was a useless act" with the prefacing remark "The objections 
to the proof is extremely technical". In Templeton vs 
Haywarcl, 65 111. 178 at page 180 our Supreme Court said 
"It laay be usual In executing instruments hy corporations 
for the officer or agent to sign his name under that of 
the company as evidence that it is executed by the person 
having authority. Still such a signature is by no means 
essential. " 

In this case the proof was signed by the appellee 
company; it was prepared by Mr.Gerold, its president, and by 
him lianded to the general agent of appellant. That agent knew 
Mr. Ceroid was president of plaintiff company, and the 
addition of the descriptive words would not have given him 
any information that he was not already in possession of. 

It is next urged that the verdict is excessive. 
The jury heard the evidence and made its finding. The trial 
judge was In a m\3ch better position to determine that ques- 
tion than this court. 

There was no substantial defense to this lawsuit. 
The judgment of the City Court Is affirmed. 



JUDGMHIFT AFFIRMED. 



k^ci 



«e 






Abstract 



f^« IK). 10 



&smm. m. 9 



niM^ u^mtm, m.^MMB ueomm, ) 

sad STFJSEff ^j<mpC Sia#r»» % • ) 

Fl^ttff* tfi «pror\ ) 

-/ 1) 

^-^"^ ^ > 






•f 



tl 1 



5I.A. 158' 



Stis eaA« Oi^ea to thi» (»>art ts^ ^s^ of & srlt »f «rror msd 
oat to revi«« a d«toras of foreeXoaare eatsrsd b^ %ixti Ctrc&lt Soart ef 
M&rloa Smmty ob Mov«d>9r 12* 19S3. fh« MU for fo>'«$Io«iTo was brtm^t 
^ th« M(8r^sat« Sta%« Saak of CeatrGtlia, Xllli^ls. as tiust^e la a tmst 
deeS ia %h6 ^Sitor* of a sttr^t^g^^ adid 1, ?. Johnsoo* as tk« hol^-^or of a 
ao%m e^sdn9% Ho»«r Sleeairo, (»m of thm taakmrs of th« note, (^« other 
joist aalser, .^isa SeC^tra^ wife of Ho^ir Me^ire, beia^ dee«se«d,) and 
Wlllias) MeOairo« Charts* M^Htire, Carl Me6air«« K»aa«th HcQttiro* sM 
2T«r«tt iieGairo, adnors. tlM ^lldr«at of >!oa»r SeOuiro &aS. tinm d«e«Mks^ 
Aaii& ^^nlre. Ihm bill for foreelosore slXof^ in sttbstaace that H<»»r 
Me€aire tmi 4ttB& MeSoiro had sxaeatod & aoCe «md s»rt^a^; teat Ute note 
v«s past due and that $1S82.€D rasaissod Avs& thetwmt that Hosor M^lairo 
a^ &mm IS<^air9 ««ro tea&Bts la e<^ira«a; that th« latter di«d Istdstste* asd 
thst she l@f t surviving, \^st hasbgfid end five saaed dtilldr«a as bor heirs* 
6^ pragred for a forael09a,re« 

%c« flllsg of the Mil, a saasosa ^^a« ls«a«i:, dlreoteS to the 
a»riff of Marion Goimtr* far all of th* aaffflCKients la tha caase, rstara- 
sble QO the foar^ Mtmds^ i& Septeaber, 19^. ^tm vs/^nn of l^e Sheriff 
OB ^ia waxsBKma t^mt %ii&% it '?&8 servod tm H<^a@r l&Suirs on S^teabor 2» 
1933* ?ho re^fs further ctho^sa that it w&» ^^rred optm Willlaa IfoSoiro, 
C!harl#s ilt^airo, 0«rl f4c0ulro, Kesnoth Me&ilro si!^ Svorolt M^alre, oiaor 
defendant*, liy Isairtag a. eop^ tharoof for tha» st tholr osoal placo of abode, 
wltb E(K8or Sie^ttlra, a pes^wi of the ago of ten yesro ^*d ap«»*rd« asfd « 



a. 

soE&ar «f ^e fa»il? ^ s^iS nis«a> defendants. A ^:«3NllaB a^i 1I%j»b w»s 
ai^>otftte4 ^ ths eeeeu-t fox all ainsr S^faa^-^ita aiKl ii» flXad a fos^aal 
aasir®r, aeilheF isdeitjting tjor dsj^ij^ ^r^ of feh« allegations of the bill, 
bttt sataKitii^ the right* bs^ Interests of the ©iBors to the prot«etion of 
th® C^mrt, Sefsnlt ^?ss snter*! a« t© sll a5«lt defenSeitts aB«a the caiss 
rsi'erred to th© laeter Sa %s^s s«d r^jsort teati^i^, Itue Mests^r dal^* fll^ 
his report, csu»« ^^s lissrA, iisS a €mQr»6 tor fQT9e%omat9 sM, aale was 
entered ssad thereafter %!*« presAawt- wgxe sold* saS i^ft* «# the ^^^IMsaalM^ 
1* f , Johafi^m ^9 ^e porcS^ser air saiA ^L«* 

fhereafter this wrtt of eri^r, «rs« sa«d *mt 1?r Willlfi« tl<^^dre» 
Olutrl@« filB^Bire, Carl SeGalre, I«aia«th MeSairft sm^. ^vsi^tt !l«^%tire, i*» 
aT9 still M&ors aafi ^iso ps««»^Et« ^i« W3?l% ^ 5ftra4 SeCSuSre, th«ir uode 
a»d B«2t frie»^, fhsir tm^b»T^ llo^r MeOairs, «»te?s hi* 8^5eM'gia<s« sM 
i@cssa<s« & psrly plat&ttff te te^e wilt of eptof . 

la fbts «!isBri« aotltm "sm* ssjI« ^ B. f , J^sifceMi, def««Klast ta 
«rf^?, for is«r« tos 

!• Hl« ati^^ted su^;s«tio3» of tb« t3igwif«3* <sf l»ter«»sts 
^ the d«f «ikli»it in »rrost 

2, Jov il«^«aai of the »»tt o^ errors <** ta *i«» alt«tBs,ti»» 

3, Jbr ^tjsstitatioa of ae» psytlss s* defai^aiita in errori 

^r tl» ts^oAfsr of ssM o^asMS to ths Saprois^ C^f t| ^A %n ai4 
«&d es^^rt of aald eatti^t fT«»«at«d ceriteilii ftttnt^ot ati^eslians sstppoPtsd 

fegr &rfia«nt. 

parties saa&d la t&e sa!gg(s«ti«m8 tharein, s^te«»d losve to iatspveas ia 
thl« e@»ftO a»i to adapt the so^fsstions sjkI aotlott of tiei &&S«Man% ia 
error* 1. f. Joli»soa» 

Aad la this etmrt aliKi>« SK>tl<m im« sssdo 1^ Jamss Hall^ saA FroS 
BiMi^o for leasw %& fil« amggsstltms of 6rsss«f»r of iatftrect* ^ Sofesdsttt 
ill «rror« 

^ provlsioa *m« aed# tmdor tl»i» Fraetieo net of 1907 for substitatlos 
of ^srtisa OS- for ^aggaatioosi, KJip^orted V affl^t^rit, as sr« aew proirlil*! 
f«r, W fe« Ciiril fMietSoe Aet, sad 1^ ^<* r«lft« of th® S«i>raao Ooart s!^ 
Appellate Owirt. ?h« re«*al •setloa «if th# Givll Fr^stloo &et» provii«s 
thst it shall sot i^alr of aWeet asf afttiea e? |>roee«dJsg ooimi^nesd Isoforo 
tfei set l^sm offset, la i?l«w of tSis fw^golag aasl t&e fast that ^Is wit 



V 

of error ia for t&e patps^w^ of reviewiag th® i.9«re« &f l<5w«?efe«r lg» It^a, 
w« srs of tiss $s>lsi«a Ihat the s#etioas of tsm 6l*ii lactic© Ae% s«lt®5 

«I>3K ^ tfe# fi«f«9a5s»tg lis, mrror 4© a?»4- apply, «^ all tJisae smtlonn m» aksre* 

Smi priasimi ^atteaiions of tha nlaSatiff in error upoa ^» 
srrers aasS^sS ^^erej 

^ly»t! ?^* the isley«»t «f Boaer ^^laii« la Sls« mitt, ors of 
tfes Jeia% i^@re of t!i<» ifceia ■'s&s Is eosf lie* «i^ aaaS apposed te, th« 
ist«5«.»% «f ^s sdaor 4ef©a::tsnts ansa fe&at »©yvis» ©n tl^<? sloars 1^ lesvii^ 
a iHspjr 0f ^e ffl^Esssft «i1^ *»t4 Sea^r Me^Jaire^ ^as set p^ed aervic© oa 

'oM %fe» <»a:*l6iafflil 4fe» was ^t«^ljr la««^si«Hit sa s »^ltaess fe«eaaaa« sdl of 
th« d«fesflaat« la ihe «^tse sere ^f^jdisg &s heirs &4 l^f of Iwjss© M^Salre^ 

ailrij ^iat ths a9t« efitlftnclag^ th.e iadeittsdaeas secsirsii s? the 
5i9r%a^s whicb was foraelo^sd ^o*» oa its fa^e«, ss offered la *»lSeaes, 
%km.% it had bees pisld ta tvt.1% prior to %fes tise th« salt --jsmi feroa^hl, 

S^iar&S ^ifit ths goarSiaa ad Xltsa did aothiag is ths ease 
eseept to file & t^tmX ai%9««fr« ^id t@(^ a^ st^s to protest th@ iatsre«ts 
of t^i adaers; 

Hf^s ^ai ^« Sottrt tmd 3So ^ris4ietlon to a&tsr tite d«^r«« 
^^[»is» It diel fi<»t hg.'T® JttHMIetion of th« eiinors 'i^e «ers s#e«se@7^ ^^ 
IMispmisalbla partise t« ths salt* 

*« fealiSTe tisat tee flr»t '^^tsstioa, that of the snfficl^cgr of 
•srrlca ^^«s %Ji» nAnors liw^lvcd, is tl^s «^ seriate spestiaa h^reis Isrolvst, 
^» retara of ti^ sheriff aiiQ^eS aerrlee ar>oa all miosrs ly l^a*lijg a te>py 
»f fe« s«t^Kms st tli^lr tumal plae« ©f s^oie, ^ith Tlomer ^sQaire, a person 
ef ^e mm ef t^i ^9&r$ aad ti^^^^Mls a^a a m«a&«r of the fsa&tf of sal^ 
slm»r <l.@f «&dant«, which r«ttim fol^ss the 3.ai^ii«g9 of ^@ statute \n foti^t 
«t ^Mj ti^ tJit» sertrine «a« jbM«. It is e^atsndaS ^ plaiatiffa ia error 
th&t \ktm intsrssts «f Sssser M^Hailr«« th$ ad:3lt t<3feai^.a»t aa^ $f his i^lMres 
as ee«>dsf»aE?4m%a ^ers ^v«?«# as^ rely principsllF msou fee tatat* «f Sh»s|> 
■»». Shar^ 333 111. ^tf S^sp« vs* Ssf^^^M 209 111., &iftters?i«di rs. Studt 
g;^ III, 356 aad People -^s, F#S<^e WS. III. 414, ia support ©f l,h«lr 
eoatentleB. 



4. V 

la ^e ^ar|> esse* feh*- tsgst© iiw^I^^ t» %h& pl«ait»g» iras 
ifesfe«rr Ihs fathfiy^ wjth «lH}jt sass^tts had bs*n lasffe J^jr his aia^r <^»iMren» 

le«k lt» ®3stlr» i»t«r««t is tfee |ss*^r*y, *o %6© ^soi'astea of his ehil^rsn. 

e^Xd aet ^ laft tfjtfe a p^raoa ^j« %h»i^ safe a atjaSaal ^»ss>lsia^t. Is 
St ssrt^y i&t«y«stsa sjk! tjenesfitshl 1^ a aftisye© ^eaiMng th« ^r^sp of tfee 
Mil f Ilea, 

a^soa tli# ^>th®r of g sdaar 'd^ i^as the «r@dit©r for ^loss b«33s«rf it fcfe« 
^speyl^ la ^o^stlos was sold »M «*iile a©* th« nasiiial eoEsplaismni^ 'sas 
fe« rssti psrl^^ ia iatsrsst* a^ s%o^ in th« position of c©i!?i;l£slQsai» '^sm 
sat good, 

Site ?«l«a£e ss««, la f^ie^t tit© rlf^ts of siijars ^ere isjt lavol^rM, 
s»aa a ^Utlec la st ^o gs&7?«^«« px^»ce@dis@, «tuir» the?« «ss an att^^t 
«9<HS the pUfTt ©f «si» 9^ the petitS©n^if« to serps a eej^ a*" th« ^©tltlcm asA 
notice, ^Km » ^m.t& aS dtrsetors, %^ 3»rvi£^ Mas«lf, &» elsrk of tl^ b&ard» 
aai 13 sot ia poltit. 

Is %}«» (^»« a% %£idr, «hlld ^i^re ai^ &i$«m '^mi, & differeadss of 
interest ta 4«g?^e ia the equity at r«d<K^%io« tb* pl*8ss4iag» So ao% Indicatft 
«^ ^Terss Jnteresi, sm ^fe^r^ati She fatiser bM tls* stsiear c4iildip<e»« ^«lr 
lster«9i la %hie o«art 3««si«d to b« smt ia ^(mflle^ a« i&«Qr alt Jslu is 
^te. writ ef eritjf. If a» t^n^asiad ^ pl«il»l;iffa is esre? tha aot» tsat 
paid. It i^jald %« %© 4h« interest oi all to d^eMj If &a% pstd, ^e 
sort^age® s?qcs1A hs»e %fe# rt^t ^ for*el98« las aoT^ag© la^ a«li lUte «©tlre 
lafeei^at Is lli© s^ri^^agad pnspet'^* rag&Ml^ss of swsar^ip. 1^ f ia^- !» 
esafliet of Int@n9is%» as in ^« ^mxp {mise miA lbs ^e|!p« c^S9* ^« ^^i^tltt** 
r&txxr& Is 1^0 %^l« Cor & p£««!£^tien felai he perf©rast ht» fe'^. 2hat 
pr&«as^ti«Q ^ b» ovi^r^s^m aast %e ddtesniii^i SfOA ^e faii»« of the re&xti* 
^mrp ^au Sharp m^ Illiaols 3g7. tipon careful ©xeswlaatioa of this r«»rsl, 
WB find sa Baeb ©onfllct of l»te?*tat, as voiild ia^elida^e the eenrlee vjpoa 
tfess© Ignore, asid dlt«s% fee Glpoolt Ocflsuri of Sarloft Caiaty of ^»url8dteMo». 

ffeo fourHi c3»t«a%iofl oC &« plaintiff b la esfsor* tiiafe t-be 
gtt^diaa ad lifees ?tid ii»fchiiig in thft esso eas^t file a foifKal aaewar end 
fessk »o 6t«^8 te ^i^teet ths ist«?^?88%s of «tee M£K»ra or to <m11 fe&e facta 
la ^je oat9« ?^ileh uoalil hc<s¥e oousiittttM & defecs© to tJi« suction to the 
att$]itlo» of ^« ^«tFtt t&tUisf^ la logical si^t^^bso with ths fSTst fa«etio& 



s. 

^st» $g3^ osafiictiof ia$ei«et, aa ^5«#^i to® fa^#y ®si tits aia<sy' oMMj?s&, 
a© c»nt#M«d >:;^ pl&intlff* in ^bttot, it seaM ss«saaa?15^ follow Ifest that 
esnfliet ef interest, sUoolS \t&t& 'ocim eslle4 to tlis stt^Jtioa af ^e €a!ar%« 
M ^lat qs»8ti©n hrs.© Iseea disspss^ of ^ oer mllag «^g® the ta«^«ti6n e# 
e«2^C9, w© Ao E©t f«©l eosatraiasd %@ hsM Ifea,^ the gBBs^istJ 3^ lJt«a ^^s 
dfarslict Stt Me *a% %o Ms -a^^ds. 

It la iHimt«n3eS Igr plaintiff Is aratw *h&t the a©te ^ivldenBicc 
tfee IMebtefe&cs seastysS %• th& !SR?t;gsg:e ^.Isfe «s.s foysolasM i^&9» an i%8 
fg«e, &« ©ffnreS In «^<!.eace, Sh&t It h»3 b^sn psiS in fall» pviar to thB 

Kjjos tee &<5®|.iasH^ tit tbe ea!spliilaa»% ta tli& lo^er ecarf, ^, ?• ??©h»a«>ji» 
afea i% i« Glfeitssd was ^ellF ts«Kssp«tes% end Sisqealifled &g a ^inesB 
becastse p11 of tks def «af*s&t9 in t&© o&s© wejre Aefandisg &» the heirs &% 
lace of ilfi^ le3^re, iri:<m&s»i, 

A« lo the first ^mteation, fSw rel.« tfe&t a r«e»lpt t» fall la 

!llt^» &ilis:, ▼. ?cU!iartlt iSS 111., 1S4, t*tit%» 9f Swlt»*r v. SsrtsoWcb, 

ISg III, &;|?p., Sf@, #s^B»5S tsdttfled t'aat It ^.s so* |>M&. f&9 jMtalt 
Si^asa^^t, fleaer ^krfhslre, J^ist sakss^p of the aste ktsd Rvs.ay ©^ppertunit^ to 
gr«««at ffrSt«Be« to rs^t the t«at!sB5ay &f Jt^nswa ss to Gcs35-pays»et 1« full 
#f tfee iu>t&, &si so^resstly dl4l. j&a% s«» fii to dc so, "Sfels e««rt ^«» ?^t 
feel ^.llsd upsaa is ^eijife ^^ ts«tli»^ wlt?s. rsf «?0ac« to gsyissst, Asd 
«« So aot fffsl obIIM a@an ts pass t^iss. the e0ap«tea^ of the ^Stae§s Johtisoa* 
with T»f«?!iBaee ta ths eee«3oS pr^pssltlsa* la tli'j a^««!see of a Mil of e'«3ttptid»« 
»f 8aj>tlfie&te af «Tid©5ic«, it will ?>s gposa^^ that tlws fiMlags warn 
*a?rsBte4 ^ t&e p?s©f« h«srS. ^ tha Goort. la the a^HUsac* of a c©fftifSe&t« ' 
ppss«yvlBS ^1 ths e^a^eeis heaj€ tr tfe<s trtal ©sBerlr, It srnist ba prsNKsa^d 
^a.% ^ejw was aaffi«l«Bt erl#>sn<» to ^airrant sad a^^ts^n the finding, 
laanae v Hasmss, sai*?*? S;R5«sasna«ke » Coff*«a, K® 1X1, ^SMt Sfessa -? Se^ia»» 
ft6 Idw 15j :^«rle » Aaerlc^i sad fss^lgia Olirtstlesa tJaiias, 100 i€, 1^3{ 
Mo^sa ir CerAles f*! Id, Tgj Udlntosii f Saimd^re, 53 Id. X§8{ IKioades ▼ 
Bhsedee, 8S 12, I39j %lfeeT v Cssy, ^ id. 470: ^llsnt ▼ I^Moyne^ lOS id, 2^ 
Mssifst. V U-i^seikt 54 tH* 381; Walker v Afet, 83 Id, 2SSj Cortes y feed, S9 
le* 205s 'Brnm V Htser, 128 111, 148? Sp. 1^ All^m v Haas, 197 111, 485, 
<^ Ml-U eai «as9s th9?« cltsd, 

y«r the r<m^^& indio&t^ alsdTe, thd «vtt 9f enror «lll 'be dississsd. 



STATS OF ILLINOI'^ 
APPSLIJVTS COURT 
OCTOBER TEIUC 
AJl. 19:^9. 



Abstract 



M.-29_ 



AGlvNDA 34. 



GEORGE WEINHACSN, Jr., A^raSnis 
trator of thg-^Kstate of ALBER' 
.\'iSIN'IAGlSN,^^ceafeefl, / 

Playrtiff-Mpel e|, / 




V9 

CITY Ofjjsmmjl, an Illinois f^nniclpal 
Corporation, 

Def enfant- App el lant . 




Appeal from 
the Circuit 

""*'*€la»iMP-*""Of 

MT^ll^aason County. 



,i0 5 I,A. 15 



^ 



3T0N1S, p. J. O 

This was a suit on bonds Nos. 15 to 20 inclusive, 
of an Issne In virtue of ordinance No. 90 providing therefor, 
passed by the city coTincil of apT)ellant on March 8, 1909. 
3ome two or three ordinances for the purpose of amending: 
ordinance Wo. 90 were passed from time to time after July 
Ist, 1909, but an examination of these ordinances shows 
that no substantive changes are made in the tenor or effect 
of ordinance No. 90. They were simply made to clarify and 
make understandable the first ordinance. 

Appellant through the years has naid bonds of 
this issue Nos. 4 to 14 incl'isive, together with interest 
thereon. It undertakes to defend this suit notwithstanding 
the payments above indicated by saying that there was no 
Yea and Nea vote taken at the tine ordinance No. 90 was 
passed and that said ordinance was never submitted to a vote 
of the citizens of anpellant as prescribed by an act which 
went Into effect July Ist, 1909,- months after the ordinance 
allowing the Issue of bonds had been passed and approved by 
the city council of ar)i>ellant. It requires but a glB-nce to 
see that the act passed J«ly 1st, 1909 requirint?; such 



ordinance to toe submitted to a vote of the peonle cx)uld 
not effect this ordinance. The bond issue comes by author- 
ity of the ordinance and the physical act of executing and 
signing the bonds does not govern. (Mcquillan on Municipal 
Corporations, Vol. 5, page 4847, ^Section 2397; Chickaralng 
Township vs Oan:)enter, 166 IT. 3. 663). 

As to the Yea and Nea vote the record on that 
subject shows but one tierson absent from the city council 
and that the ordinance was unanimously passed. At this 
time and down tint 11 1924 this was tantamount to a Tea and 
Nea vote. (Barr vs Village of Auburn, 89 ill. 361). This 
case remained the law of the state on that subject until 
19S4,- that is, fifteen years after the i«=!flue of bonds here 
in qtjestion. 

Neither of these contentions can prevail, as it 
seems to us perfectly obvious. Having taken that view, we 
regard it as unnecessary to discuss here the question of the 
city's being estopped to take the position it now takes. We 
m5ght add, however, without deciding that question, the law 
of which seems to be well settled, that the city In this 
case ought to be estonned from denying th!s honest obliga- 
tion the value received of which it has had, lo, these 
many years. 

The trial court ruled correctly on this matter 
and its judgment in that regard is affirmed. 



JUDfflidlCNT AFFIRMED. 



Abstract 



STATE OF ILLINOIS 
APPELLATE OOUaT 
October Tern, A, D. 1939 



-Abstract 



Term Ijo. 



Agenda Ko. 



Earl V/illiama, 



"^i 



Plaintiff -Appellee, I ) 

/ ) 




vs. 

Bertha Kraper, 



) 

Defendart^^l^ellant. ) 



. 4! from miQ S 
Oirauit Goi^t^f 




rar&lin Qounty, Illinois. 

305 I.A. 159 



Dady, J. 



The plaintiff, il^arl Y/illiams, who is the appellee heroin, 
filed his oor:plaint in forcible detainer before a Justice of the 
Peace against the defendant, Bertha Kraper, who is the appellant 
herein, to recover the pogaesaion of certain preraiaes located in 
the Oity of Wast Frankfort, Illinois. The defendant, after service 
of sucHnono on her, appeared and at her request was granted a change 
of venue to another Juatico, who tried the case on May 3, 1939, 
and entered judgment on that date in favor of defendant. Plaintiff, 
V7lth a surety, executed an appeal bond in the amoiant of #50. 00, 
which bond was filed with and approved by the Justice on May 5, 1939. 
The transcript of the justice and the appeal bond 7/ere filed in the 
circuit coxirt of Franklin Ooxmty on Hay 17, 1939, and on the ssaae 
day the defendant filed in the Circuit Court her deiaand for a jury 
trial. On June 28, 1939, the cause was called for trial and the 
defendant then moved to disiniss the appeal, which action was denied 
and the cause prooosdsd to trial resultinc; in a judsinent in favor 
of plaintiff. This appeal follov^ed. 

Defendant contends that tha Circiiit Oourt did not acquire 
jurisdiction of the appeal from the Justice of the Peace and erred 
in denying her motion to dismiss for the reason that the transcript 



-1- 



JQBliSCJA 



^'•'ATP. 



'•rx'Sy A 



oT rsetfc^oO 



.o- crjeT 



!>?. r .A, I 608 



. »oIXdqi^'»'i'ii;iaJ;ai ' 



>s:-i^<3;^ 



'' V 



(XJ>eCi 






©oitr'; .BJtotrxlIXi t^Hol^-^rnf:! ;t£«iT' *v \T»*it) adit 



?^@i *e f «IS oe soicrasri ©rt^ i^ JbovorKtqig tas Aits belt'l bbv Mod ilolxfv 
fjoxfter- aa-r aoljfota iciolflw ,X«©qqA ©rfi aeJtnfiXi) o^ t»rm! K©nc? .-^rifisoolteib 



from tha Justice of the Peace fails to show that the plaintiff 
prayed an appeal or that the Justice fixed the amount of the appeal 
bond. This contention ia without force. The appeal bond was in 
fact entered into by the plaintiff aM his surety and was filed 
with the Justice and approved by hin within the statutory period of 
five days after the entry of the judgment. 

The entering into and presentation to the Justice of the 
appeal boM for approval was all the praying for an appeal that 
xTae neoeesary, and the approval of the bond by the Justice '-Tas a 
sufficient fixing of the amount. (Fix v. Quinn, 75 111. 232; 
Enright v. Rehbaoh, 133 111. App. 50; Natenberg v. Solak, 174 HI. 
App. 443. ) 

The fact that an appeal was or was not prayed on a certain 
day isay be ahown by eviienoe other than the entries on the justice's 
transcript. (Lambert v. Dabbs, 302 111. App. 400 j Cachren v. oweigle* 
213 111. App» 594.) 

Moreover* as stated the defendant on May 17» 1939t filed in 
the circuit court her demand for a jixry trial. This aHiounted to a 
general appearance, and she did not make the motion to dismiss until 
the case was thereafter called for trial on June 28, l''^39. 3y appearing 
generally in the circuit ooiart the defendant waived the iiuestion of 
the jurisdiction of the ciroxxit court on appeal. (Ohioago Paint and 
llallpaper Oorapany v. iiellahan, 57 111. App. 601} Davison v. Eeinrioh, 
340 111. 349.) 






,.o_;f; le 



^•ja/t, « iK>t ttuaz&L •serf ^iwop diwo'iio esii 
11 '>rr 1^6 fifa Sxtn t^O' ■> 



Defendant ooinplain3 of cai-'tain alleged errors In the 
admission of evidonce ani quoations tho auffiolency of the proof 
to sustain the trial ooiart's jiidgnent. 21o report of prooeodings of 
the trial appears in the reoord, and in the absence of such report 
suoh errors, if any* are not before this coiirt for consideration. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Abstract 



STATE OF ILLINOIS 

APPELLATE OOORT 

October Teirci, A. D. 1P29. 



Term No. 



Agenda No. 



-5^ J' 



Francis J. Eky*-,""* 



) M)peal fromithit 

,. I / / / 

aalntlff-Atpelloe, )/ City CoT|i:*t off 




VS. 




Ea©t|St,r LouiB, Illinois. 



Francis J. Slrye C^tjjifecifing fj / 
Company, a corpoa^sfi^'lon, i) / 



Dady, "J. 



'V«i^on. Wesley £. Lueders, 
^ndant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. 



305I.A. 159 



Defendant, Francie J. Ekye Dietributinp: Company, an Illinois 
corporation, "brin,';^? thi? at real fron a Judgment of the city court 
of Eaet Et. Louie in favor of plaintiff Francie J. Ekye. 

Plaintiff's oo-^plalnt charged that defendant owed plaintiff 
$1,279. f'O on revoral different clainc. Defendant filed an answer 
denying any indebtedness, and a counter-clai*^ in the eura of 
tl,042.29. No oueFtion of pleadings Is raised. 

The case wae tried without a jury. The trial court entered 
Judcrnent in favor of plaintiff in the sun of .*820.10, and entered 
judgment ap;ainst the defendant on its oounter-olaim. 

Of the iterae croing to make up said sun of ?820.10, only two 
are disputed by the defendant, naraely, an allowance for .''500 for 
pereonal eervices of plaintiff and an itemin the sum of .:'57,10 
hereinafter referred to. 

On June *?, 1933, plaintiff and his '^/ife, ;.:arion t'kyo, as 
parties of firpt T)art, and Louis E. Levy, agent, ap party of 
second part, and Francis J. Skye Diptributinj^ Conpany, a corporation, 
as party of third part, entered into a written contract, v/hioh 
recited that the first parties ovmed, controlled and operated 
a certain liquor business; that third party had recently been 



^::- 



2 On* iatfi^^^tf^ 



3I0MIJJI •'lO STATB 

.(^■Sr ;.->T 1©do^oO 



ftmlt^t^tk-taMi 



^ C» I »£:i^ X 1? 



O o 



fiionaiH 



10 MEW erii 111 JBlaio-ied'BUOO * btiM t^eerrbe-J^Bfarrl ^n« ^rTl^rt^Jli 



.be 



A iiiisoo 



:i:ti:nz^is\, 



^frieo«T bar; 



Til ©IC 

all* BiiStffGi 



organized as? a corT:oration to engage in the liquor distributing 
"bueinees; that it was the intenf^f parties of first part to sell, 
tratiefer and assiijn to paid corporation all of the good will, 
merchandiee and other assets then ormed hy first parties; that 
first parties oonteniplated owning and desired to sell all of the 
capital stocl' in said corporation to second party or hie no^.inees, 
8.nd second party desired to purchase such stock on terTri.s therein 
set forth. Co far ae naterial, said contract then stated that, 
in consideration of one dollar and the nutual covenants, the parties 
agreed, anong other thin^rs, in substance as follows: First parties 
agreed to execute bills of sale to said corporation covering the 
assets then o\»med by first parties, describing the same, at prices 
fixed in said contract, the sa?3e to be paid for on or before 
June 15, 1938; that first parties agreed to sell and second party 
a,2;reed to buy all of puch cai:;ital stock at a certain -rice; that 
first parties agreed to devote all of their tir^e and erergy 
promoting the "-ood r/ill of said corporation until July 16, 1938, 
for a reasonable compensation; that first parties- agreed to subnit 
to said corporation, at the tine of sale and transfer, duly executed 
resignations as officers and directors of such corporation, effective 
July 15, 1958, or at such earlier date as r^.ight be detertmined by 
second part'^^: and that said corporation agreed to pror-ptly account 
for and pay over to first parties all T^oneys received by said 
corporation in connection with the accounts receivable of first 
parties, deter^.ined as of close of business on May 31, 1938, which 
accounts receivable were to renain the property of first riarties. 

It appears that on or prior to July 15, 1038, the contract was 
consumrjated. 

On January 1, 19S9, 'Marion Skye assigned to the plaintiff all 
of her interest in the contract. 

-2- 



Iw toos eri.t rjo fJBiDT^oo Mat - _ -islBrt^ii 



o':.' T.erfrf i>fla 1 ■■ rfj. 

8. 

eiolacf 10 fTo no'i islaq aJ oJ otufia orli ,ifo«i.tftoo b-'ap al 4r»atll 

: i>9ftx»ijs ««i^'i«»q o aoA jjBan&qiEOO ©Xd&fioafcfe'i i -iOA 

£>to^w<;?ti.x9 ijl»i> tie" ; - ♦ . .-foijfvSnoTJOo i>Z«a oi 

•; hertlaiTs 'telliae riou- . .. - -r^,-^ 

•jrfU-'O^e ylirr^-o I'i OJ . oaa'fj^r ao i J siO'Tioo t>lJB« .t."i. 'tiv^ r;D00Q3 

&l«a ^ff fisvldosi sYocroiB Lis BQtttsq iazXt oj itjv \«'4 Ijna 70^ 

^-,„to -,.. - r '^.vieoeT 9vVrfuoQO£ erid" riilw rfolioemtoo Hi aol;tJ»Toq^oo 
riot ' . -0 .. ,x;, Tjf fe «o aaeniai/'i lo ©ssoXo ^o a« fieaiiprte^ob ,aolJijBq 

. - . ' ■ -^n^oo 
• JOS': J. >3©i©.+n-' 



Plaintiff tectifiod that from the date of the oxeoution of 
sail contract until July 15, 1^23, he regained with and managed 
the fcur.inese of the corporation, working "day and night, regularly 
and steadily," "breaking" new men into the busineee, lining up 
ealesmen and eelling merohandiee in the place of business of 
defendant and on the road, and that a reaeonaMe compeneation for 
euoh nervioee would be ^"125 per week. From the record we believe 
the court wae justified in believing his testiraony and that fSOO 
was a reasonable allowance for euch servloee of the plaintiff. 

Defendant next contends that caid contract .vae ill8,?:al for 
the reason that oospeneation wae voted to offioore of a corpor- 
ation by resolution carried by a vote of the officers to be 
compensated, - plaintiff being the preeident, and plaintiff and 
hie ^vif© and one other person being the sole directors of eaid 
cor] oration at the tiiae eaid contract was entered into. Inaei^uoh 
ae defendant accepted the benefit of eervioe? of the plaintiff, 
which were outeide of hie duties as president of defendant, the 
defendant ip liable for reasonable compensation for euoh eervicee 
rec:ardlec?s of the contract. (BIoot v. Vehen CoBipany, 341 111. 200; 
Voorheeg v. Kaeon, S45 111. •#^. ) 

Ae to the dieputed item of ^E7.10,- plaintiff tetrtified that 
on June 13, 1938, and after the corporation, pursuant to eaid 
contract, took poeseeeion of the stock of roods theretofore owned 
by plaintiff and hie wife, ^65. 00 worth of euch merohandiee was 
Etolen and that on July 1, 1939, when plaintiff and defendant 
settled or partially settled their accounts the defendant withJheld 
f65.00 from plaintiff, and that Mr. Alpern, the succeeding president 
of the defendant, at that titne told plaintiff he v/ould bo paid 
therefor when the ineuranoe on such stolen merchandise was collected. 



-S- 



7- 






;..-iJ 



• -lei) 



JLJ « lliVl-'J 



I £ It ■ RfT B . ."f W!s!S t •{•§'. . ■ rrn ttoo 

'^ *cf'Ttm^^ frt' -:oJf;t«'SOtfioo 

:»M9-tMr. irtir 

ebrrelel) 

( . ?n*f . ; . .. ooV 

ift©ijia«'iq ^niijeeoou?. 9lii\tnQqlix ^-i^i. i»di tas ^llXdalulii SionJ 

'10 



Alpem as a witness for defendant teetified he knew of the rtolen 
liquor, that "if I owe Mr. STrye anythin??, I owe hin r57.10 not 
§65.00," and that no adjuetment had been made with the ineuranoe 
oorapany on the rtolen liquor. Plaintiff's right to recover was 
not dependent on the colloction of such insurance, and the court 
wae Justified in allowing euch itera. 

Defendant 'e next contention ie that the court erred in not 
allowing its oounter-olaiffl, which if allowed would have more than 
offset the claim allowed plaintiff. Thip counter-claim ir "based 
entirely on the charge that one Jrigeby, who was a salesman for 
plaintiff and hie .-/ife ''-efore and at the time of the organization 
of the corporation, and who thereafter continued ap such ealesrran 
for the defendant cory oration, collected betT/een June 1, 1938, 
and July IR, 193S, rnoneye from the eal© of aerohandiee belonging 
to defendant and, 7/ithout the conpenty^^but at the direction of 
plaintiff, turned euch moneys over to plaintiff to arply in payment 
of accounts due plaintiff and hie wife, trior to June 1, 1938, 
from the came curtomere. V<e do not feel required to fo into any 
lengthy dircuBeion of the evidence on this issue, but consider it 
sufficient to eay that tbe record ioee not show that any money 
collected by Grigeby on the eale of merchandie© belonging to 
defendant wae actually U£?ed in payment of plaintiff's accounts 
receivable. 

Defendant complain f of the refueal of the court to adnit in 
evidence a certain exhibit. This exhibit is not abetractsii hence 
defendant ic in no position to raire the question. ( Rehfue v. Hill , 
243 111. 140, ) 

The Judiftnent of the trial court ie affirmed. 

Affirmed, 



-4- 



/'. 






rrolc*'? ©lit to yf&snl •ri l>elli;:fB&i crni'^rre'l^ 
.toil 01. 'f 

oorr«'jx»ni Gfij :Uiw ©ti..:, nstn'f Li. a ;r.T»Rj 

■''.'Xrta'ji'ii Jon 

£!«!■''' •"• ■ ■--:.'. i .. 



ytlf-^fnoiem V 



loietn 



*i i9binttcc ;9sl i 

o* snl:%nol6l' sslibrrArfoTefr: Id el; 









5>9 



..be' 



■^R*^'tOr;i 



V. 



STATE OF ILLINOIS 
APPELLATE COURT 
FOURTH DISTRICT 
Ootober Terni^ju^.r 1S3S 



Abstract 



T©r)n Jjo 



THE PEOi L3 Ci' TW. 31'ATS OF 
ILLIM0I3. 

i^Qfendant in Srr*or 




va 



/ 



TED HOLZKi^UIili and M/iltX WJiJATKSRLY, 
J lain tiffs 1x1 ?Jrror 

DADY, J, 




.gonda ^'0 . 



V/3?i| _j3^" Error f1l9**t3a».--- 

County Court of Ollnton 
County, Illinois, Wo. 9 



Hon. V/lllip,a '^£en 
Presiding Judye . 



305I.A. 160' 



On February 23, 1959, the state's Attorney oi' Clinton County 
filed in the county court of that oouiaty an Information oliargLng that 
tho defendants, Ted Holzhauer and Mary Weatherly, on January 4, 1939, 
In eald county "^unlawfully * * ** did llvo in an open stats of adul- 
tery ajid fornication, not being xaarrled to waoh other ^ but Ted 
Holshauer was then and there a married ruan mid not legally divorced 
frora hla ^rife; and that llary Weatherly was then and there a married 
woman and not legally divorced from her husbaM," contrary ••* <> • ©tc. 

A Jury fotmd both defendants guilty "in manner and fona a a 
ohar^d . " 

Motions for a now trial find in arrest of judgaent aads by 
each defendant were overruled, and the trial court entered a Judg- 
ment of guilty as to each ^fendant, to revievj which defendants 
have sued out a writ of error. 

Defendants contend that the information is defective in 
substance In that It fal3.s to state that defendants lived "tocether" 



1-14.>J. LAli.. ' 



i 



t!^ 



-vii-; . -i.:w..i-.ij. ,^v-iiw-'^ 



r A 1 40 g 



-Ij- isftmaSjxV* \ttw 



liiiiiia i. 






or with whom either d.efendant was living. The record does not 
show that any motion vjas made to quash the Information. The 
motion in arrest of Judgment merely states that the coiiplalnt 
"does not state an offense against the penal laws." In our 
opinion, although Informal, the information sufficiently chaises 
defendants with a violation of the iitatute in question. ( Crane 
v- People , 168 111. 395; People v. Love , 510 111. 569.) 

Inasmuch as the information specifically charges that each 
of the defendants was married at the time of the oommiseion of 
the alleged offense to a person other than the co-defendant, the 
information in effect charged each defendant with living in aji 
open T-tate of adultery,- and not ir. a state of fornication, and 
this ie true although the word "fornioatlon" was used. In order 
to convict either defendant of living in an open state of adul- 
tery it was necessary for the state to prove that such defendant 
at the time of the commiseion of the alleged offense was a 
married person and had a spouse living. ( Lyman v. People , 198 111. 
544; Miner v. People , 58 111. 59.) 

The defendants contend that there is no evidence tending to 
show that either one of them was at the time of the commission 
of the alleged offense married to some person other than the 
co-defendant. 

The case is presented to us on a stipxilation of facts signed 
by the State's Attorney in behalf of the People, and by the 
defendants, by their attorney, which stipulation was approved 



'<^ 



asaaa;lo xXitttilol'i'iijB aoXii^snolul sd^ ^laiTtctiii rtsuatltlM ^noJtxilqo 
■ •'^^ ■ .. _. '<^'JS . ■ S-'^ .;"■■... .V 

'a- -r-?^ . ■■■-'•' --x-^'r '''♦ 

III &Q1 t .3/v-v^/j);-i J) .gnlYil aaju^sqa £ ^xi firra fioeioq .bftiiiABi 

.All S8, .alcTDs^ ." T:ar^>'^ ;:^i»3 

.^ax:-fii:r' ' ••, -;:r 'i::: -<:i; ■v3;io^' 3"^:nj ■:-::;a? 

fjengia aJoxjl '^o noitfalyqlda b no sw o^ batasBntq &1 bb-^o sriT 

3Xfu '^<I ^BJB 40lqo9l '^ff:^ to lljsddtf at v«fr-rr>:f.-*A ^•'ntBS'8 erijf -^cf 



by the trial Judge and filed in the trial court. This stipulation 
states that no reporter was preseiit at the trial and that there 
was no stenographic report of the evidence. It states that such 
stipulation is a "true and correct record and transcript of the 
proceedings had/' and then states whiat evidence was adduced and 
concludes wit]-' the statement tbat "all facte not incorporated 
in the trr-npcript" v/ere waived. V/e have carefullj* read such 
stipulation or "transcript" and in our opinion it does not appear 
from such stipulation that ^^ny evidence wr'atever wae introduced 
which shoTffe'J or tended to sho^f that either defendant v/as married 
and had a spouse living at en;/ tiiiie prior to the filing of the 
information and within the period covered hy the statute of 
limitations . 

In his printed brief the State's Attorney states what he claims 
certain witnesses testified tc on the trial, out such alleged 
testinony does not pppear in the stipulation or in the abstract 
or record J - and hence cannot be considered by us. V/e can only 
consider the record as presented. 

The cause is reversed and remanded. 

Hevers ed .o\*^ ruovsA.<;ui/...eW- ' 

Abstract 



%<■ 



if9va Jaif* s«?*s*fi :tl' .oofifift.tT9 edi \i> tfToq^i olcIriE'rj^ofioJB on eat? 



iOBTJodA 



AT A TERM GF THE AJPPSLLATE COURT, 
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February , in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty^ within 
and for the Second District of the Gtate of Illinois: 

Present — The Hon, FRED G, WOLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hone BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice 
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice 
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk 
E-. J. WELTPJR, Sheriff 



305 I,A. 1 



^ 



RE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to -wit: On A?^^ 61940 

the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the words and figures following; viz; 



.,- \:3'^<A 



\\ 



>>>/AUji»i.\.' 



.z ,,inroa 



nerchaiidiso and fis:tiires. Upon tv/o of these policies aggregat- 
ing 5?9,000,00 appellee broii/^ilit euit :aiid recoYGred a jucLi-;;:'-ient for 
l'9,--59.95, i^ich v/as sustained by this court, •'^mndciuist v. 
Hardware Ihxt'aal I'ire Ziie. Co., 296 111. Aop. 510. Thereafter 
the Judgnent of this court was nffirned b^ the Sijprene Court, 
Sundquist V. Tho Hardv.-cre I.-futual Fire Inn:. Go., 371 111. 36G. 

The faotD v.lth 7.x^f erenee to the origin of the fire and 
t^B financial condition of .oppsllee sufficiently appea_r in these 
opinionD of the Supreiiti Court c;nd of thir court and need net be 
repeated, I'pcn the t^lrd of the instant case-- tho defendant 
contended, ars did the QefendEJutE in the forner case, that the 
fire was of incendiary origin end there was evidence tendinr- to 
establish chat doferse. Jr. hie opsnin;-; argument to the .jury 
one of eppcllec'j attorney's referred to the fact that one of the 
defenses interposed by tho dofendarit vfds arson, which covjisel 
asserted mi!-:t, 'inder the lav;, be prcYen by th^-' dcfendcnt heyond 
all reasont-bl-. douot . Co\inLel for appelj.Lint objected end the 
court cverrulod the objection and oounsol for the plaintiff then 
oaid: "They rr^rast prove beyonl all rea,?on.;ble doubt, as I told 
you in the b6glnri.in,:5, vrhat thsj had te dc". In his concluding 
argUEient to the jury, another of plaintiffs o-ounsel in coxriiient- 
ing upon tJie defense that the fire vfas of inceodiary origin, 
said: ''That is the -.ray it look3 to iae. People are presunied to 
be honeat and righteous \inle3e the contrary is sho\«i. Therefore 
the lav.' places xvoor). these Men the biirden, if 'chia luan has ce'-riitted 
a criiae which excuses then frora ncetin^ the provisions of this 
contract, then they juust coDe here 7;ith evidence that shov/s him 
guilty of tho crime of arson beyond all reaaonaole doubf*. 



-i'-£: 



id h&nL'i&BiJB saw iloiriiv ,5t^.\<i-t'^Y 

to CfT13r.I5iii0t ©ri* 
.'BtlSpbHifH 



J-^Irl 



^■(.T +.1 r 



,-..* . ■:' y 



^no.t aofld-^jtra e/avr oiori^ ^ : r.'^i- 



tost »; TiTfltsrr aTeniDv- . 



aaoinJtqc 



:'c: M'f-: 






©10 .. 



ffllxi i^'.voxie :;_:xi:: vOX:qx?Ivc :iJ'2';; attcxi ^*,joo w4>j:;i \;c*>.J xic;-;!^ ,-:»'C'ii'i:ii;oo 



Coiiiisel for defendant again ODJecoed, The court overruled the 
objection and counsel for plaintiff then continuadt "I'-'e contend 
that is the law and the court Eristains otu: contention this far 
in the ?.rs'inent at leat-t'"', T-i this co:;ir.'?cticn cminsfti for de- 
fendant tendered to the cou;?t the .rollov/ins instraction which 
was refusod. "The Court furthf^r instructs the jury thitt if you 
boliove fro;?: a pr'-eponderanco or c^ei-iter weight of the evidence 
that the pli.intiff, «.dth intent to cheat ^nd defraud the defea- 
darit, Y/ilfully and iiifliciounly sot fire to or cause tc be set 
fire to or lir.rnad or caused to bo burnedj tie pvoz-'t^y^tj described 
in the policy of Insurance sued on, then youi* vei'dict should be 
for th? defsnd.'s.nt". 

Thir: refused instrrcticn is In the identical 1 .?jnr;u8. ';e of 
the rsfused instruction set forth in t^ie opinion of th? Supre^i.e 
Court in Sundquifst v. Herd-.vero 'utu&l Ins. Co., supra, at pa.'?/3 
363. That case overraied Rest v. Noble and Co., 316 111. 3S7 
and the cases therein cited, the court st'^tlni-:^ that the reacon- 
afcle doubt rule 'vhich req_air3d proof of the comrrissicn of a 
felony beyond e reasoneole doult, either as 3 cause of action 
or a defense in ?. ci-?il suit •.vculd no lonj;;er be adhered tc in 
this state and ezpressly held that this instruction should have 
been given. The co';rt concluded, hcA-ever, that the refusal to 
give tLi3 instruction did not recuire e. reversal of thnt iudg- 
msnt inasiimch as the record disclosed that no instruction rras 
given saj^ing anything .^bout reasoncble doubt but did disclose 
that an in- true t-i on \vds given 7/hioh reiuirod a finding for the 
defendants if it "'^as shovra. by ■?. preponderance of the evidence 

-3- 






-sb 



z .1,:. nclwO, 



■ <T'*iiy^'igr o A"* I f -») i 



d- Bi ^flild- 



VO': -'W 

or. 



bed ( 
©cT 



vO 



9t: fl;r 



•OLmatiffl *iT#J5 



^Oiie. iOLEtfl&leifi 



that th3 plaintiff h'^.d tBlsely bwoto that he was ignorant of 
the origin of the fire. The record in that case also disclosed 
that a spscial interrogatory had heen siibrdtted to xhe juryv/hich 
specifically found that the plaintiff did not svraar falsely 
Ti'hen ha sail tho casiio of the fire was unlmov/n 'qo him. It like- 
v;lr.e appears from the record in the instfint case that appellee 
did not requ.oet nor did the court j-ive any '.'-/ritr.en instruction 
repuiririfr proof of an3'-bhin?: heyond e reasonable donbt and the 
ninth 5;iven inr.trrrctj on in the instant case Is idsnticai vdth 
the tenth jrivon instrnction e.s appear? on pp^res }6'^ ana 366 of 
the opinion of the Snpreme Ooixrt in the foxner BunoGTiist 0£..sq. 
IIoT/evor, no special interrog:atorie? \-7o-re sn.D.mittc;d to the ;in.ry 
in tho instant case. The record here then differs fron r.he 
record in the fomer case in tvo particulars, firsx the ahsence 
of a special findin.n; to the of feet that the plaintiff did not 
sv/oar falsely -.'fn.en he said the cause of the fire wrs vjikriovvn to 
him and second the erroneous st>^tej'ient of x,hn la.w made in coansel's 
argxiracnt to the pivj which the trial court spJictioued. The 
record discloses that npp«lj.eo only requ.ested one instruction. 
v»hich vms to the effect that if the jury found tiie issues for the 
plaintiff that interest should also be tU.lovi^ed. Apptslleait uen- 
dercd twenty- tv;G instru,ctions, fifteen of "lyhich were p:i-ven as 
offered, one raodified and six refusea. In none of ohem ;vQrethe 
jur77 told thFit they should be goirerned by the la-// as iotind in the 
instructions. 'Ihe sta"&ei'"e'nt oi the ppplicablt; larvf emuiciated by 
counsel for a^^pelles In their argu.nent was erroneous, 'liie trial 
court should have sustained an objection thereto. The only 
conclusion the jury woxild have been warranted in arriving at after 

-4- 






Tjii^T ciovw xi^.- -sgs.:iif^ tHJ Jan? 

~x f)^oe»'i Oil. .-f-i' yn^ to ftlgJtTO .: r!.t 



90.I&BCf£ 



r^^.f.Tg ^o r»o>^5f».r- 



,t*bnaB8 oTow Belie 



Toxn.tqo edJf 

if^'•^ on ,iev?>vifolT 



a' I©; 



9r<: 



'gtjoJ.oeih iJiDoerr 






■.i <..>-';.:m '•ii:or.'', v«il;f c<-flfl«t *JLo# X%|ft 



the court had overruled counsel's objection v;a3 that defendant 
must prove this particular aefonse not Ij a prepoxidsrance of the 
ev3.denoe hwt ueyonu a reasojiaijiy doubt. Under ti;e holdin;; of 
the bupi'Sffle <-^uart one r-ei'usal of tixe tenderod instr'ioticn ander 
the facts as aisclosed by \..ai3 rtjcox'u n'soessitatGii a rovorsal 
of this jdder.ieut. 

Ix is =jlao insisted by couitfael Toi' appellant t':iat th.3 re- 
cord discloses appellee to ixava v.^en ;%uilty or such fraud and 
false swearin? after the ioos as to rendwi' ths policy susd on 
void und?r tne provisxcui of the policy and iC in; insiijtod that 
the record is entirely dixferei.it in tliis respect froin the record 
in the forruer case. It is also insisted that the Tcrdict of 
the ^v.vy on thes issue of tht exteut ci tne loss is ^.gainst the 
wfefflght of the evidejice. Inaeii-iucii &b thii oui^e uutt be sub:;.! u ted 
to another j^i"^" it is not ncocsaaiy foi* na to coni:ider the^^e 
alleged c^rounds for reversdl and we rofi-tdn frci;! exprescin^j oiir 
opinion as to the weight of the evidence upon these isauet;, 
Neither is it neoeEsa?,"*y for us to pace upon the aJ.leged inproper 
remarks raade by counsel for ajoelleo iii t±±^ prccionce of the jury 
during the progress of the trial or the refusal of tho trial 
court to sustain appellant ' b ohallenge to the array of petit 
jurors. 

It is also insisted that "ohe trial eoui't erred in poriaitting 
Theodore 3undoi3i{=t, a son of appellee, to testify that in his 
opinion the aatea}: actual cash raiue of the i^erchandise in appellee's 
Btore on J'ay 1, 1936 ^vas between sixteen and tvvsnty thousand 
dollars. His tostiiiiony disclosed tnat he wa3 workine in the 
Galva store .and assisted hiB father in msking up the inver.tories 
of that ftate v-mich v/ere offered and adidtted in evidence. His 
testimony further disclosed that at the tirae of the hearing he 
v/ati eciployed, and had been for a year and a half, by 2 ears, Roebuck 

-5- 



isuil. ;o&udo u'laanuoo Jbelinisv joo edt 

onebive 



•aiJ: blQV 



ie^ 



3^ 



.atallofj 
seiioc^rxe' i aiH jD©*Bxa«» bus eio^g bvIjbO 

9x1 aisi-xfiajfi ^rid- to sbiIo arid- iB ifidt beaoLo&lb -xsiljii/l ynoiald^aad- 



and Gompemy in Chicago in the office of the Merchandise Superin- 
tendent of th^^t coTspany and that, his daily wo.rk had to do with 
matching the prices and price cnangeB of furniture j rugs and all 
lines of merefccndise. Re testified that before sroing: to Chicago 
he vjorlced as a salesman in the Gq1t& store for his father about 
three year?., K/asi far:i.liar 'vith t.]ifi ?>zcok, had hejidled tiost of it, 
loiev.' the wholesale and retail Yalaes thereof and had called off 
the various items of i'^erohBr-dine to his father dt the time his 
father listed it in the ir.ventoriet-. referred to, tie wa.s cross- 
exani-ned at ler..<jth bj- counsel for appellant aod gave hip opinion 
of t2?.o TctJu? of certain itecis inquired about and wae miable to 
do 00 &s to ethers. Tn our opinion his testimony was corxpetent 
aiid the weif^ht to li^^'- accorded It wps e^ rietter exoluBivel'/ for 
the jury* '^'^''■''^ tri-'^.l court refu.sed to nd'-at in eTidence a certifj'ed 
ccx^y of th.e bpn.V}"aX'tc;.'- p'^oeeedin^s c._nd appraisers' I'oport v/hioh 
dioclosed th--* p-arch>«3e of the lanery stock 03" Sundquist in 1922. 
In Tiew of the conditio}! of th- record r-.t the tine this offer vras 
!'iade, ■'."■0 are inclined to think it wan a.iiiissible. The other error 
complainod of occurred "/nils «r. "V, Sundquist, a brother of appellee, 
wa:-?- o.n the mtn;?as st?;,nd. He testified that a psano frane found 
in the debri?: ..'ftr^r the ■f"ire wa.s>. a "Yose" pianc;. The plainiiiff 
ffon his sett 5>t counsel's table "Jn an audible voi.oe said: 
"Schiller piano". Oorinsel for ^^ppellant 7noTed the coui't to direct 
the reporter to insert in tbe record this occurrence which was 
done, the court stf^tingt "-^0.1 ri^Tbt. The Court v/ill allov." that, 
fi£ the court hee.rd it hiriBel'?'" , J'Tnt.h.ln'' furtbor <'-i,|"nieaT-s in the 
record. Of course it was improper for appellee to hare laade this 
statoraent. The cour"!" did everjfthing' v^ich counsel for ennellant 
T-equoPted, J'vll of it occurred in the presence of the Jury and 
vd.ll not occur a-^rain. 

-6- 



-iiiisqwa eeiBiiBTloieLI erid" lo oolllo esit al osjsolxIO at x^EqiaoO baa 



"fl^' ■:. ■>j.j.ji0 J. y^iu^^V 11a-.. 



uoxnJtqo ■>; 



bvttl^-^^r 


1 T 


/!(.. 




.s.::^j 




QBM le'i 




loiie 




,98ll9q<xfl 


to 


bnrro*': 


^sr..*- 



d"oeil£> 



axxiJ ax . 



For tb.e reasons indica.tod, the jiidgiient appealed from lirill 
b3 reTGi'SGd and t.ae cause re'S-anded. 

EWSreSlD AND RSIvJANDSD. 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1 

SECOND DISTRICT J I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my ofifice. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and afiLx the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



Cleric of the Appellate Court 



AT A TERM OF THE APPSLLATE COURT, 
Begun and held at Ottawa^ on Tuesday ,- the 6th day of February, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within 
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois « 

Present — The Hon, FRED G, ¥OLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hone BLA^INE HUFFMAN, Justice 
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice 

JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk ^ ^ 

Q O K T A 

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff O '^" '=--' ^i- ^ n t 



BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On APK 'o lb41J 

the ODlnion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the words and figures following, viz; 



GEN. NO. 9477 



AGENDA NO. 2 



IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLETOIS, 
SECOND DISTRICT 
FEBRUARY TliSM, A.D. 19^0. 





IN RE: Tire CC?NSSEYATO'^SHI? OF 

HEREvTAN R. HIRE, an in|oa.petent 

person 

BESSIE L. HIRE, Gons^vativl^x, e^ 

Appellee, 



FIRST NATlOlkL BANK OF PEORIA, 




APPEAL FROM CIRCUir-'0OURT 
HMTRY COUl'ITY. 



Appellant. 



HUFFMAIT - J. 

This is a proceeding brought by appellee to reclaim a 
certificate for 50 shares of stock from appellant. The action 
?/as brought under Sec. 7 of the Uniform Stock Transfer act 
(ch. 32, sec. U6, 111. St. 1939). 

The certificate of stock was endorsed in blank by llr. 
Hire. lie placed it v/ith Rogers & Company, brokers located in 
the city of Peoria, Thereafter, Rogers & Company pledged the 
stock with appellant as security on a loan. This loan was paid 
and tne stock again caiae into the possession of Rogers & Company. 
It vra.s thus pledged by Rogers & Company v/ith appellant several 
times, and each time redeemed by payment of the loan, until 
March 23, 1938» when the stock was again pledged by the brokers 
to appellant for 41250. It has not been redeemed from that loan. 

Following the appointment of the conservatrix for l.lr. Hire, 
a letter was virritten to appellant bank by the attorneys for the 



S .OH AG>r>[OA , ^.,. .OM .WHO 



TJIUOD cJTAJiJSI^ SET 11 

TOiKTeia aiiOvcr 



4-- 









.trLfiliecrcA 



■ JB fiilj3loe^ oi eelXeqqfi ■\td Jrfauoirf sfli^eoooiq s si eldT 
riolJ-OB eilT . d-iUBlXeqqia moi'i 2lood-a lo a^nisrie 0$ lol 8J'isolli.;f*xe.o 
cfofl lelBflBrtT 3lQo*£i itt'xolixtU esLS to S .oe8 isbnu uiivu^Qitf saw 

, ( t .III ,dU .oee ,SC .do) 

jxl Jbectflool aisiio-xd ,x.fl«(pioO jfr eiegofi dixw Ji iisoaXq eH .eitH 

hlBci BBW hbqI eirfT .asol b no Y^X*iiro«>e eb . crasIIsqqB d&bn i[oo^b 

.YCBqjHoD oS ansgoK lo noleeeeBoq erlJ' o;tnl ©roBO ciBSB afoocf-a eri^ fma 

I.ei9V98 taBlleaqB dtlfT TjcsqiiioD ai ai©soH y<^ /)ea6elq ewxi* bbw: ^tl 

Iid"njj ,nBOl odt lo ia&i^jsq x^ bem.e&b&n emXi rfOBS boB ^e&ssli 

ETeaoid &d& X^ f>esl)9lq nlsss sbw >(oocte ©ii;f nerlw ,SC^I ,CS iIoibM 

• itsol ;}'srf;t cfoi'i Ijerassiien naed *on EBd (M .O^SI^' lot drualXeqqB o^ 

te-iXH .i^i nol x±n.tBVi9Bnoo sdi lo ifiiQiitd-ittoqqB axU" 5\filv/oXXo'? 

•rid- not a^eiiiod-d-B 3d& x<^ jtnBcf i-xtsXIsqqB o^t aBi&trcvr aBw isifd'sf b 



conBervatrix, advising the bank of such appointment, and re- 
questing information regarding any accounts or property of 
Mr. Hire that might be in its possession. This letter was 
'i-vritten under date of ITovenber 20, 1937. 1V»c da7/s later, 
appellant by letter, advised the attorneys for the conservatrix 
that it had no accounts of LTr. Hire's on its books. 

/hen it v;as discovered by appellee that the certificate 
of stock was in appellant's possession as security for a loan 
to the brokers, this petition was filed in the county court for 
citation to cause appellant to appear with respect to recovery 
of the property in question. (ch, 86, sec. 54, 111. St. 1939) . 
The coiinty court dismissed the petition and discharged appellants. 
The conservatrix appealed to the circuit court, where the ques- 
tion vms resolved in favor of appellant b;/ jury. rollovri.ng re- 
turn of the verdict, appellee filed motion for a new trial, 
which motion was granted, and appellant brings this appeal 
from the order of the circuit court granting the motion for a 
new trial. 

li?hile the trial court might v^ell have denied the motion 
for a nev/ trial, yet the case contained questions of fact as 
v/ell as lav/, and a trial court has a wide discretion in this 
regard. He has the advantage over this court, as he hears the 
witnesses testify, and for this reason, we are reluctant to 
change the order of the court v/ith respect to the granting of 
the motion for a new trial. 

The letter written by appellee to appellant advising 
it of the conservatorship of Ilr. Hire's estate, v/as \>n:'itten 
under date of November 20, 1937, v/hich was but four days follov;- 
ing the appointment. The stock v/as placed by lilr. Hire v/ith 



-•.1 . ■ .'• tJ-oeffidrtiO' q:: .-..jj ■ lO iOBtf sriJ- j'cla.tvbje ,xiid"*nt9«jaoo 

1o Y^©<I0T<I 10 8*«0OOOB -^njB sotJbTBsei nctiBsno'iaX j^attat^up 

aew I9^d-sl eldT .coiaaeaaoq a*l i^l ed d-riglta &Bd^ ettll ,1M 

,iscfel 8TfJ5fi owT .VC?i «0S rtsdmevoK lo o;^Bb tebrui netiliw 

.83Coo<f a;^.t jBto a'a^H .iW !to a^rroroooa ok bed &1 iatiit 

ad-flol^i^tieo extrf' J-buct ^sXIeqg* t<f fie'i8vt)oaIj& saw ,tl aeiilK 

-OBoi A. ' "i T^-ttr»«2 SB aoiecaaaoq a'c^oalXaqqfi nl asw aloodia lo 

101 Siijc:. 9£lji at b^SllL BMW ooXtlSeq airf* ,e4e>[oicf sdi oi 

Yievooerf o<t .tseqaaa ditw iBaqqB ot ^txLsIIeqqf^ eex/BO od^ noicfB^io 

.iCC . i^XI »>? .oee ,^8 ,:lo) .aold^aawp nx Y-^'^ieqosq eiii to 

.acfnjBlIaqqB fcagiBxloali) ban aottli^q 9sLt fieaelmalf) ^^nyoo -^d^riiioo exfT 

-aoup ©lii" aaaiiw ,;trrirco ilsjtnlo eskt ot ^eijsaqqfl xlitevi»&aot> ©jiT 

-©•a sclv.'ollol .VtA/t y,d d'CJElIaciqB lo lovsl nl fcarloeai bbw nol* 

tlsli* w©fl B nol flol^tOM Jbelil aoICeqq^ ^JolJbnev ferid" lo xiruriJ 

IjD8qr[£ aid^ ajyfiiid ctnalleqqB baa ,fi6*njets bbvt ttct&OKi rialxlw 

B lol nolcfoiff ail* s/rii^nBis *ivoo ^liioiio ©rfd- lo leLio ^ric)" uioil 

• liilid' wexi 

Gottfofit »iii bBia^b eTfld Haw trig^ija rfii;oo IbIiJ" aricf allxfvV 

as *9al lo eaotfneup b^ale.taoo eaBO arit J-e^ ,lBli;f wen a lol 

eliid fli aoicfaioalA 9f>lw b ajari tisjoo leiii;tB bss ^■^Bl ea Hew 

eitd" aiBoi! Sri es ,v+iiroo elri;t lero B'^tn&a&ybB arid" aarf sH .biB-^&t 

oi *nad-oifIei eia ©w .naaxjart aixli- lol fiiis ,7:m-a©<^ 898aexi;fiYr 

lo ^Rita&is ©ri^ o* cfoeqaai rid-iw J-iwoo ed? lo leJ&io eriJ' e^iifirio 

. iBlid wen s ^ol rroicfoa arid" 

aed-J-xiw bjejw ,ecfBdTj9 a'ailH .11.1 lo qlxJaTWd'a-rsaeuoo ©rid lo dl 
^woXIol BYfl£» lool ivti atw iloxilw ^VC?! %0S. rradoiavoPi lo sJ-Bb lefirm 



the broker on October 6, 1937, aiid on that date the broker 
pledged the stock vrlth appellant as security for a loan. This 
loan was shortly paid, and the stock again pledged on October 
9, 1937. This loan v/as paid on IToveEiber 29, 1937, and the 
stock again pledged on March 4, 1938. This loan was paid on 
March 14, 193''3. The stock v/as pledged for tho last time on 
March 23, 1938. It is the position of appellee that by virtue 
of the above section of the Uniform Stock Transfer act, she 
has the right to reclaim the sa^ae from appellant. 

Under the evidence in the case, we hesitate to reverse 
the order of the trial court in granting the notion. Where 
questions of fact exist, an order granting a motion for a new 
trial will not be disturbed, unless it appears there v/as an 
abuse of discretion in granting such motion. Carter v. 
Geeseman, 303 111. App. 281, 285. 

The order granting the motion for new trial is therefore 
affirmed. 

Order affirmed. 



•ra^Ioitf 9At e:fRb tasit no boB ,?Cvi ?- ..^.octoO no iBiio-xd edt 

'::scfoJoO no fcegJboXq xiiBsa atoo*8 ©ri^ JbnA ,bifiq ■'cicfrroria aflw flBOl 

9d* bOA .YC^X i9S ladittaToH no binq a£ir nsol elriT .Vt^i ,9 

no fi±Br; «jBw flBOl stJiT .8C^I ,A ilOTSM no fi®sJi«Ig nlBaJB aI©o*B 

rto eutlJ cTaBl •di ^co'l £>»si>slq sew ■:toocra eitf .5^"^ ,Al xiaiflM 

yjLtdrclT tcf ■^t-accr »oir»(|<!rA lo nolJiiBoq ©dtf . ,c5 fioieM 

ede jCi-oB lelanaiT aloo^te flnto'ilaU mtii lo isoi^oee STocfB erict to 

^i-tialt9q<ip wonl eiEDS eril talnieBi ot tti^ti fidS aari 

QOievon oJ euBJtiasul ©w .oeno eri;t nJt e©a©£iT9 odif" rteliiiU 

sieriv .flOicfojK ed^ snldrcBnis nx iivoo iatit s>A} lo lebno edi 

yrea a lot flol^OiS b ^liasts i^bno aa ^ialxm ioaJ to BScLiEeup 

iif saw srteil;t BiB©qqB d^l BBeXzuj ,fis<fr£jj;tBifj ©d cfo/i IXiw XelT;t 

.V let&iaO ,aol&om xloua f^nlcffians al aotteioalb to eauie 

,iSS ,X8S ,qqA 'IH €0C ,aBci9B8eO 
ercolarradcr al I;3l^ wen 70^ noiS-Oii 9di axild-nflis neAno eilT 

.JbenrtiltB 



STATE OF ILLINOIS,, 

SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eeeords and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my oflBce. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty-. 



Cleric of the Appellate Court 



AT A TERM CF THE APPELLATE COURT; 
Begun and held at Ofcawa; on Tuecday; the 6th day of February, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred a^nd forty ^ within 
and for the Second District of the 3tate of Illinois: 

Present — The Hon, FRED G, WOLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hone BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice 
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice 

.-.s™. .. .0H.3™, CXe.. 30 5 I.A.I 6i 

E= J. WELTER, Sheriff -v^J^ 



BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit; On APR 61940 

the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the words and figures following, viz.' 



Qm, N0.94S1 



AGENDA NO. 3 



EI TKH: .VPF^LAJS CC.TT;iT OF ILI..INOIG, 

sscoI^[D■ DisiracT 

FliBRUARY TEEM, A.D. 1940. 



WILLIAM! KELTZ, Jr., a m.aor, by 
V/illiara Kel1^g,.^.-hi«>^iiezt fricudi 

/ ■ 
Appellj^e, 

/ 



^^ff*-^»^r;A^, 



'X 



FRANK C. I'TrC0D:nT:fS,\J"r,, gfs HG09iT|r ) 
of the 'tVabash ,RaHw;|7 CoHs|)any, a Q^r- ) 
poration, et al,, 




ROBaiRT K2LT3, a iiinor, by ^nillaja 
Kelts, ills next Ti'lend, 



Appellee, 



vs. 



) 
) 

FP.A1TK 0. JJICODSJSJS, Jr., as Receiver ) 
of the Wabash Railway Cocipany, a Cor- ) 
poration, et al., ) 

Appcllantc, ) 



WILLIJJI KJtlTZ, 



Appellee, 



vs. 



) 



FRAinc C. ITIC0D.lSvT78, Jr. as Receiver ) 

of the V.'abash Re.ilway Company, a Oor- j 

poration, et al . } 

Appellants. ) 



"Si:*** 




,A??3/a: FJ^OII CIRGUIT COURT 
vaLL CO~aMT. 



IiaFFlWilT - J. 

Williaia Keltz, Jr., and Robert Keltz, minors, instituted 
their suits by their father Williaia Kelt2,, as next friend, to 



\^9.0W .M2L0 



,OAei .Cr.A ,MSST T5W.. 



Tfsjon TT"crrjo 'ito-'" ia"" 



YAIIHW 



V 



,i<jf'ii)i e ,.,. ... ^j. 



,©«II©qqtA 



. aJii3i.toci 



s»IIaqqA 



'i:.;v.;.y!L;y 



oi;iis'ioq 



../.'j:.:;! haijjiw 






recover for personal injuries sustained in a coLlision between 
an automobile v/uich tiiey v;ere operating, and one of appellants' 
trains. The father, V/illi'vn Kolta, brought his suit against 
appellants to recover for loss or scrricos of his sons and for 
damageo to his aixtcnoblle, v<-hich '^vas involved in the accident. 
The three cases \73re consolidated for trial. Verdicts were 
returned ir^ favor of oaoh of the plaintiffs, and this appeal 
follows frori ^ud.^ionts rendered theroon. 

The suits were brought against app^llarits as receivers 
of the railvray company and John. A. Filbert, the engineer of 
the train involved in the accident. The ocsplaints charged 
that the defendant receivers, through thoir servr-nit, defendant 
pj.lbort, operated the train ir. a negligent m.anner by failing 
to give any warning of itc approach to the crossing in cuegtion, 
as required by statute. The jury returned a verdict in each 
cafie, finding the defendant erirtlnccr not f-uilty, v,hicli relieves 
froii present conaideraticn the CLuestion of the neglige'it opera- 
tion of the brain. 

The complaintE fi.u'ther charr,ed appellants with failure to 
install automatic signal devidos at the crossing; alleged that 
the crossing was a hazardous one; that appellants did not have 
tJie crossing properly laarlced with sigh posts to warn persons 
that it vra.5 a railroad crossing; that the planking used at the 
crossinc was not proper and did not coiaply with the effectiva 
orders of the Illinois Coijiruorce Coiaiaission; and that the view 
north along the richt-of-Virrcy, was obstriicted. 

Tha railv/ay trad: j>an xicrth and soutii. The road being 
travelled by appellees ran east and west. Appellees were ap- 
proaching the railroad crossini^ frora the west. About two 
hundred fifty feet nox>th of the crossing, the trades of the 

-2- 



lie •: 

d-Bf:issB wJtva aid d-fIjJt»oicf ,i;*I'-'' -^.< . "•■''^ .aal*i;J- 

rtot bsiB axioe aJtii' lo cool"-- - *'- -.ir-.-- ..JiuElIeqqB 

.uceMocB '?rf- !' ' « v-'-.7^, ,:, ..^ „..r cd" Bo^jwaaft 

©19V e: - ._- ■•1,1'tlo.j.rc o-!OV/ es=;;i'.o f;rTJ;t oilT 

.'-• cfftB^fci/t /^onl awollot 

fieaiflxio aifnlBltp'.oo erl'. 

asvcMBt .. aaoiUjjao iaX' 

9vsd ioa bib BiaaXlfi t.foI)iBsoxI b gbv? axilaeoio eri^ 

anoeie-i niB»/ od' ad". .14" 

edi ta bpass ^alMBLq, i>'j.; ; iXZiJ'i ^ i ■ ■ 

s>vi(J-0©l!tr ■ ' .' --.--. ,jg^ -,..,; 

-cis s'le.v aseiXec.;^.. ..:-.... ---. -.-_- .- _ ,.;. _._ ^. i)«XI©T6Tit 

owd- d-jJoctA .d-eew ed* xaortl r^alaao'ic baoillBr &di gairlOBOicj 
Siid' lo e-^OBi& ©rid- .sxxleaoio e/i* "to rid-aoji o-sel y^tTrit fo^i>nx/xl 

-S- 



Jfichigan Central cross oTer tiio tracks of appellant, by an 
overhead crossing, '/mioh is referred to in this case as the 
viaduct. Appellees urge that due to obstructions to the view 
between the crossing and the viaduct, and due to v-zeeds and 
vegetation "Miioh appellants had permitted to gi*ovv' up along, its 
right-of-way, their view v;as so obstructed that they could not 
see the approaching train. 

Thrt question of warning sig;nals, with respect to the 
crossin.';: itself, is not controlling, as the evidence of appel- 
lees disclose that they were familiar with this crossing and 
upon their approp.ch to it on the day in 'Question, brotight the 
automobile to a full stop about eight feet fron the track, and 
looked in both directions to see if a train v/as appros.ching, 
before proceeding further. The question witji. respect to the 
planJiing upon the crossing, is not a controlliiig feature, as 
it had ncthins^: tc do with the accident. It appeal's fron the 
record, that the onlj ouesticn of negligence which could be 
attributed to the railway company, v/ould bo the growth of 
weeds and vegetation that appollees allege wore pernitted to 
grow and nccuinulate on the west sida of the track and to the 
north of the highv/ay, thus obstructing the viev; botv;een the 
crossin-.t and t'le approach of anpellantB' train fron the north. 

Appellees T'illiaxi, Jr., and Robert ifolta, wore liv'ing^ 
with their parents on a farm somewhere in the vicinitj'- of this 
railifoad crossing. The accident happened on Sunday, July 14, 
1935, at abo-mt five-thirty in the afternoon. It was a bright, 
clear day. The two boys left houe in their father's cai' at 
about tv.'o o'clock that afternoou. The;^ raot tv;o young ladies 
with whon they apent the afternoon at various parks and pleas- 
ure resorts. Part of the tiiae they were aoconp'-Laied by Robert 

-3- 



rtf: 



■di nerc 



R'l^tCoO XiflS. 



wo 
ail 



3j1J oJ" ^oeai.-;ot i' 



3X1 J J. 



';To-i:fj 



':8i.JJ B»9l 

ui f^e:^!;poI 
. J _ , , .'iri anolotf 

t nrt.Vrl.t. i 



no ed"oli;iii£roofl taa woTg 
.ild-ioix ©do sROili ahitt *Htfr«j_ 



al 



, jxlSi'-'. 



!?£!OWliBrr 



Juedo. 



and Charles 'iTac3!'. Tovrard eve'ilng', the party of six left 
Mchigan Beach and appellees tccic the Tracj hojs hoiae, Vi/here- 
upon they started toward their hone v/ith tm? two girls. The 
road over v;hich thev v/ere travelling juot px'ior tcj the acei- 
dentj is a rather miiiiproved countrr' road, rough from rttts 
and holes, "T^hey were apr.roachinc: ths crossing in .'iuestlon 
frori the v/ect. Tho weet end cf this country road had been 
gravelled at one tine. The gravel -inds shoi'tly to the east 
of tha croDslnf3 in questionj and from there on, the road is 
an vjiimproved dirt road. The photographs shov; that the travel- 
led poi.-tlon of thifi hishvray is ^'hat is ooimaonly called a one 
track hip;hway. The real is referred to by the v?itnesses as 
the Steele Road and is about a raile .■5outh of New Lenox. 

Robert Kelts rQceived a head iujur-y vand ao:js not reneti- 
her anyt-hinc: about tho accident. '"illip.m, <Tr, , states that 
pLohert T"-as driving the car at the tiine rmd that he was sitting 
in the front seat to Robert's right. Ko furthei' states 
that as thes^ approached this crossing, the oar was brought to 
a full stop abovit ei?-;ht feet west of the trach; that he and 
his brother Pobort looked north 8.nd soiith to see if there v/ere 
any trains approachin,-;, Exn.d if the y^ay 'A'as clear. Pis ctates 
they sav; no train approaching, and that hie brother started 
the oar forvrard to cross the tra-ck; that isbeii they vrere about 
to go upon th-3 T'.'ost rail, he saw the train for the first time; 
that it was right in front of thoin; and that he firabbed the 
steering wheel and turned the car to the rj.ght, v/hich vrould be 
to the south an3 in the direction the train was travelling. The 
front end of tho automobile '.vas struck by some portion of the 
engine. Tho car was thro-.vn over in the ditch to the sotith of 
the highway and on the west side of tho railroad rlght-of-.'ray. 

-4-. 



..^..... . ... ...... ... 


■■-iilolU 


<^ ^tjswo* JieiH;-«. 


- noqi; 


w -iraii* rio .?'■.•- 


' T.j^'o Bboi 


; i-'if-^ 


. ir.sh 






- f s 



iii to 



aotcr^lis ar- lacfofl 

frits eji .1 ©lii^ lo i*a©«r deol -jotfa qpin Iltfl « 

eaew ©lexli ii o&o 'J-rrcxr Jioioc 'lorrd eld 

ioJt^ij:: ModJcia iilii Jj.ij .CHS ,,ir.i;:.0£0-xq.qa fiXaii on w«a -^erfS' 
;tjjocfa eiev/ y©^^ -«28^>^ ^•'^ "^^ ®d;t eaoTC otf J&i^vno'i ^iso •iI;J' 

a ed ^liai inayi eAi rroqtr og o# 

■^^r- ..,...,: „... .... i)£t© ^atnl 

: :i.' ir'.t ervr 'leo o/T ..'.■'<i'.''.:'n9 



J Ginicr ini\ ': 






The evidence shows that the highway is about two feet 
higher than the sro^ind alont'^ the north side thereof. This 
fact is borne o^it by the photographs in evldenca as introd^iced 
by appellees. The photosraphs do XiCt indicate that the grass 
and vegetation was such as to obstruct the view of the rail- 
road track or to obstruct the vlev.- of approaching trains, 
'fillian, Jr., states that the car was stopped about fifteen 
or t''Venty seconds vrbilo he and his brother Robert locked up 
and do'.vn appellants' trade to s^e if a tr.Tia va3 upproaehing. 
According to 5iis evidence. h3 riRver sav/ the ti'ain, nor heard 
it, until it -,mB right in front of then, and v/hen they V7ere 
so close to tho traclr that the front end of the oar v/as struck 
by the train. This vma a railroad crossing on a country I'oad, 
out in the open country. There appears to havt^ been no other 
traffic on the hi-^hway at that time, and no noxDd or confusion 
to prevent one from hearing an approaching: train. His evidence 
that the car %^.s broucht to a fu.ll stop clost- to the tri^ck, 
is corroborated by his ^rltneas Bobbix.t, v.ho lives by the cross- 
ing. He states that he saw the car pass his house approaching 
tlie crossing; that he loiov.^ the car and knew the oovg; that he 
had soon thoFx drive along this road arjd o-ver this crossing at 
previous tiiies. Ho states that the car was brought to a full 
stop before reaching the track; that it -vas then started for- 
ward and was creeping alons at about oite mile an hour as it 
approached tho tracic; that he watched the cax^ during the entise 
time and oav; it operated up to the crot^oiuc, sax-; the train 
coming, and sav; tha accident. This witness says that tha front 
end of the oar collided v/ith the engine, throwing tiie rear end 
of the car around to the nortli and in contact v/ith the baggage 
coach, v.'hereupon the car vras knocked ijito the ditch on the south 
side of the highway and on the west side of the track. 

-5- 



fisouboai-fll Ha &otmbttt> at 3ff'^j?.Tro + - r«cd «i a-oet 

gif bejiool i'io<io'R n®d*o«o' airi ferui «jI ftlJtrinr afinoooa ^?Aev-? 10 

9^ew Tftiid^ flferfw &X10 ^Eimd& to Saoi^ ti.' ..~il 

yLoutiB aaw ibo ■oxiJ ^o bn@ ia.o%t edi^ J«4i 7(0^1^ ©4^ o;t oeoXo 04 

tjisrlJo ofi a©«)d ort&A 0t anzoqcuB vicj: ix?oo aet^o (tsk;t tfX ^ifO 

aolaulito* to daion on tfiU- ^smli J"®.' o olxl/sttit 

stwae/iiv .jt^a £iW£l SCO J'xxeve'e^; oJ- 

-esoio eil^ Yd a-^v '^saoUo'jnios b1 

^niriojBOifTqjc aairoxi ux:: ua^^q ics ax;- iSij-t •■ nJt 

sri tJBH* i axo<i • 9*^^ '*'^'Cl bo*; 'CiiO »ili 7/o.i3i r.x: ji^fii- ;s.x;aa>i--:o .sj^i*- 
cfs Siileaoio «txfo'^ - ' :?u 6j80'; - ^ --*:tI> joexit npae Sfld 

liirt: J5 ot ^d^isso'iij ...«< ..iso eii.^. .. -..v .-. .,...< j.. ,«»xa4J^ ai>oiysiq 
-'icl f)€KKB;?E -■■' ' - •- ■-'•'■' •■•-'-? -"^^ ynixIo»«x ^rwliecf qo^e 

bu& iB9i^;:'&Tvt^r<y%rli ,orti8UO ad^ xld"Jtw hoMXIot) -...bo «^r{.t ?:o ftne 

rid^^ifoa ori;^ ao sityilh aii^ od^xii &83looir>4 aev n^o ©diJ aoQirsasilv: ,£lojboo 
,d05rrd' ©xlJ- lo sble cfssw srfcf no I)iis yjbwiIsIxI erf^ to eblz 



The engineer of the train testified that he sav^ the oar 
approaching the croceinc; that tao toll \;as ringing and the 
whistle \m.2 hoing hlovm; thrt upon obstirriUfj the fact the car 
did not ctop, i.to had appli«u the erBi'gencTr braises Deforo ho 
reached the crossir^j. lie says that one of the front \,?hcels 
of the car cirie in contact vat}), the side of the en{-,iriOt A 
nuuher of vatnosoes testified for aX'pellfrjit that the whistle 
vras sounded at f:-. point no?:th of the overhead crossing of the 
lvlj.chisaii Central, and was oontinued to b'^ soi-^ded vmtil it 
reached the orossins. There is e.lso evidence of the traLxinen 
th.^t the hell rings "bj an automat io device and wa^ started 
ringing and the whistle blovm at the whistling poab north of 
the Tllchis^an C-antral Crossing, and was ao continued iintil after 
the accddent. The jury fotmd that the engineer v.-as not v;Of:;li- 
gsnt in fnilinf^ to 30un'3 proper mi::'nin<';. 

Ono -''f the young ladies who waB riding ■vvith appellaeB at 
the tine of ths accident , states that j^he wa3 riding in the 
hack {:?eat of the co.r v/ith '-lobert Koltri, and that hlllieu^i, .Jr., 
v/n3 in t'.)e front seat driving the c>\r, w'ith the other yo\mg 
lady at his aids. 

It iB difficult to reconcile the i>hysical fnctc esioting 
in this case v/ith the exercise of duo caro and caution on the 
part of appellees. They y/ere in the operation of an ai;to.T.obile 
upon a road v/ith Vihich they vjers f^ailiar; the autoinohils vrs.s 
brought to a full stop v;ithin ei^iht feet cf a railrcc^d track, 
at a hi£:hway crossing out in the open countrj^, away fron:! the 
noiGG an:f ccnfurdon that p^e^^■all3 in and ahout s">'itoh yards 
and congested areas of the city; they loolced both north and 
sovith alona the track for ai^proaohing trains; the automobile 

-6- 



9il ^•io'iea 8«):i£*xd' ^couos'i'J '** 'Oii^'^ Sftil-^fre ')?'^ oi .To<+rt tfoft &I:A 
ftrf* 'irr 















was then pi^t in q,ee.v and driven forward at about one raile per 
hotir, to a point close enouri;!! to the west rail of tlie track to 
te struck by tiao en.^lne. 'accidents of thi?; n^itiire are indeed 
regrettable, but s^/j-ipa'chy caanot 03 pernittsd to replace that 
degree of caro v/itii whlGli every person is chargeable under the 
lav/, to observe for hio owa safety. 

One approaching a railroad creasing, should do so with a 
de.^ree of care cornrnens-jr^ite v;itii the knovm danger. This rule 
cf law is so v/oll established, that the citation of authority 
is unnecesssry. It requires that persons approaohijis a rail- 
road crossing, laust tnake a reasonable use of their faculties 
in order to determine the existin^g conditions, and waejjher a 
train is approachin-'? cloBe enough to render their .'toing upon 
the track dangerous, fhe application of tuls rule does not 
mean that the train must then be across the nighv/ay, or imine- 
diately upon the highv/ay. Neither vrill the application of 
the rule permit one tc o-o recklessly upon the track mthout 
talcing proper precaution to avoid ecoidert, or to claim that 
he locked tc see if e train wag ap'^roachinp and did not see it, 
\7h8n in fact the tr-'^in v/as there, as it is apparent fron the 
evidence in this case this trajn Kiist have been. 

The record has been carefully revie\»''ed. 'J'he coui't does 
not find oridence c^ing to establish ne\^] if;ence on the part 
of appellants ""rith resoec+. to the oojiriitions su.rrounding the 
crossing in caxesticn vvhich appellees clairr; caused Ihani to be 
i^jiable to see the approaching;;; train. 

The jud,;W9nt is reversed and the cause remanded. 

Reversed and remanded. 



beebal ots <^" 'Hi lo 63"ctl>i"00.\ .onis^e eiltf vcf afoirn^s wf 

s/Ii' lehnu ©IdBej^T/'fi'' b r nnp'xoa -v:irore ilo.tilw £l^iw 9i:so 1o ae^sal) 

.vj-slBB nwo Rifl lo'i SfvreBrio o« ,?,'»! 

eliri siilT .laj^cuaf) cwo/of niJcf il.tlvr ^itB^t/ej-ierjuoo euao to t> . t,u 

Y^iiot'itifiK lo jioi^Bitle 9ii;r ;tfti<7 .bsrfeiXdr.tf-Be LLavr oe si; wpI lo 

-12*1 13 afll/f.&i»onqtie 8iioBi»or ;^i»x(3- eeilupst tfl .yrriscReoeani; al 

8fl»J:crXifO.Bl ilttrLf 'to ©Bir t».ttfftcroei?9'i a eyifur ffsfrv. ,,^jt«8o^o Bbot 

jp aerlnsnw t>ne jeaold'lhrioo pfii;>-B±xe ei"l^+ ealnr^^Bb o& lebio ni. 

noqw jiTXOS tlsriJ' isf>P9'i o^ xf^nfono ©eolo pnJx<o£'OTqcf>o el cIjsi^ 

*on BBOb 9im ataj lo floltfaollcroa eriT .Bifo^esasfi jCoanct ©xl* 

-emmJ: to .YBwriT'.lxi stii »aoiojB &tf aBSii tussm ale^^t exi* :f«xl3 aBwa 

iuod^tf/ Tiosrr^ eri,t xtoqfr viRneJ^osi 07» oif eao tlftratq eXiri e4^ 

^sjl.t iiii(5»Co Ovf lo .vt 1951:309 bioTQ oi noi^ftwooiq Torroic T^al-iBi 

(d-i eaa *on hif) baR ^.rrlriosoi'»T.« 6«vr flii»*r:t js li ©ea od" ^osfooX »if 

e<i<f ffoil i^n«iBqq;B sil *j. es ,3T9ri:t aevr nlot^ 9ri;t ioot at a»i^ 

.rreetf t^TSii y^rm Rtsri ^txLS e^eo ^l(*.& nl eorrsJilvs 

&inq sriit rto eon«8l.C5s©rt iirii.S.fiB!^7ie o& goiog scarolji're fji^tl ion 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

SECOND DISTRICT J I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



Clerh of the Appellate Court 



AT A TERM GF THE APPELLATE COURT, 
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within 
and for the Second District of the Gtate of Illinois: 

Preaent — The Hon. FRED G-. ¥OLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hone BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice 
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice 
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk 
E, J. WELTER, Sheriff 



305I.A. 162 



BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On l\?\^. 61940 
the ODlnion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the words and figures folIcb"ing, viz; 



am. NO. 9519 



IGEtTDA NO. 12 



III THE APPELLATE QOUHT OF ILLINO^^ 
SECOND I^isTRICT 




IBRJJA3.Y TYpl, A.D. 19^. 




W. r. HOLMES, 



VS. 



V7. J. P. 



) 

Appellant . ) 



)l APPEAL FmV. CIRCTJIT COUTcT 
i LIVINGSTON COUIITY. 

) 



HUFI¥u\N - J. 

This case coraes to this court on appeal from an order 
of the circuit court of LlTingston CoTinty denying a notion to 
vacate a judgment entered by confession in said court. On 
March 30, 1938, appellee caused judgment hj confession to be 
entered against appellant upon tv/o notes, one of xvhich xvas 
dated 5'ebruary 18, 1928, and. the other dated 5'ebruary 21, 
1928. These notes were signed by four makers, namely, Todd 
V. Richards, Charlotte '^, Richards, J. D. Richards and 
appellant. At the time the judgment was taken against appell- 
ant, Todd Y. Richards and J. D. Richards were dead. Appellant 
filed his notion to vacate the judgment against him on the 
ground that the v/arrant of attorne:/ in the notes was joint 
onl3r, and not joint and several, and that thereby judgment 
by confession against him c ould not be had. 

The notes v/ere given on a form used by the Farmers State 
Savings Bank of Cornell, Illinois, and are identical in form. 



(■ \r ■" OT-T 



'~—~~r".\!i'X — 






\ 



jH .■? .W 









.\«£ .'S .W 



cfxifllleqqA 



lafcrro ils moil IflsqqB no d"T:iJO0 atriS orf- aemoo d«BO elxlT 
o.:^ noJtd"Ofl! 6 sixlxaefi i<tasioO nocfagnf- titoo ;Jlnoilo orfi' lo 

od od^ flolaaslfloo y<' 't b»»UBO eeXIeqqB ,8C^X ,0C xlo-i^ 

esw liolrfw ^o ead ,«9*on ow* ncqir ^riElXeqqB •J'biiJLbsb Jbertad-na 

,IS -^iBirlrfel &©*«£ lati^te ©xlcf fins ,8S9I |6X t'lflinda'i fc©d-j5Jb 

fiJ&oT ,YXQxcs£t ^ei35{.o/ii luol vd f)9a,^.ie staw ro^oxi saerlT .SS^I 

fixuB cJE>ier:oi:n . . t^fciflilolH .S ad'rf'oIijBriO ^sfioBric 

-IXaqqB tfefllflso fl©ala;f bbw ^ne.T^bifl &!i& smLS eAf ;tA .;fflflXX&qq^ 

J-iiflXXeqqA .5b96 ei0¥f abiflrie , .: bas efiiBriolfi .V bbo'P jdiifl 

eild- XI© fitiil d-BfllBSB d"r£9inj)5£»i/i, siid" ©a-eoev oJ aoliom. Bid. be Lit 

.txiiot saw a©it T-vtclot^B to ioBfieKt &dS t&At bauorg 

c^fl©rnsBi/o Ycfe'ssnj JBJid ijxis ,XjB'feV©a bass ttlol d-on ixus t^XflO 

.' "' - -'' ^on i)Xi/o laJLrf inaiti-^B nolasfe'irr-' '' 

.nrro'i ni Xi30l;^^e^f: ^'^- ''••■■- .or-orrrrrr r ror,-..'->'> >,-, -jioB^ e-jn.f.YBB 



The warrant of attorney the rein contained, is as follov/s: 
"And in considsration of the above indebtedness and as further 
security for the sar;2e , T herabj'- irrevocably noninate, appoint 
and inake anjr attornej^ at law in the State of Illinois or any 
other state or territory of the United States, my true and 
lawful attorney, to appear for ne in ar.y court of record in 
the State of Illinois or in anj;- state or territory of the 
United States either in tern time or in vacation, at any tiiae 
after the date hereof, and to v/aive service of process, and 
to confess a judgnGnt on this note in favor of the payee or 
any assignee thereof for such sum as shall at such tirae appear 
to be unpaid thereon, Including attorney's fees as provided 
for above and herein authorized to be confessed, together "vvith 
the costs of suit to be taxed;***." No dispute exists with 
reference to the facts in this case azid the only question to 
be deteri:iined is, \vii3ther the v/a'^rant of attorney is joint, 
or joint and several. A joint po\'/er of attorney does not 
authorize a judgnient against only one of the makers. 

A note containing power of attorney very similar to the 
above was before this court in the case of Duggan v. Kupitz, 
301 111. App. 230, wherein the power of attorney v/as held to 
be joint. The position of this court in that case was si_ipport- 
ed by the authority there cited. The v/arrant of attorney 
under consideration herein, in substance 3Jid effect, is the 
same as the one appearing there: the difference being, that 
the warrant in this case is raore extended in fona. The power 
to confess a judg?aent must be clearly given and strictly pur- 
sued and a departrare from the authority conferred will render 
a confession of judgtnent void, A warrant of attorney which is 
joint does not authorize a several judgLaent, but laust be 

-2- 



aarUiifl bb fiiXB BS«/v*)ecfcfe6£ix ©yotf^.^ &■ "-^ '^oti3isi>ias.oQ nl JbxiA" 
d-c:xocrq;B ^^iRoHaca ^XcfisoQTeTii ynei-- - , . isa sit* lol x^^'^oee 

biia e i39*c^ fi.e*J:xiU adt to x^o;tlr£i©tf 10 e;teJ6 noA&o 

8x1^ . ..ill lo aj^BJ-.a ©dc^ 

8mi;t Tjixa ;>■« ,Jioi;^flOfiv nl rio soitt /iit[«»;t .^i •rBd-:tie aerfs^tB bo&iaJJ 

Jjcs ^aa^coaq 150 ©oi-nea dTimr oi baa ^toQiBd ptoJb diiif ie;Mfl 

10 jje-^Bq erid' lo iotbI nt eson aiilct no cfnaitigiu/i; .« aeslaoo o^ 

laoqqs SBilct doun &b XXerie as fiu/a riojja aol *o»tteJi;^ eonaiasB YfiJB 

bvblyoiq bb aeel b'^y^^^o^^^ snlLwIoni ^ao9i&il^ blBqnu ed o* 

il;)-jtw i©xl;}-950d- ,£)9eo8lxioo srf o^ boEiioriJuB alBieA btw i^vocIb lol 

li^Jtw ataixe Qiuq^etb 'ibex&& ed 0;}^ Slue lo b;}^boo e£{;f 

oif aolSa9D9 xXao stli bfss e||«» 9lsii al s^obI erW- oJ- ecneislei 

^on laeofi y^^i'^^o^^b lo ttevioq Jxtlot A tlBTev^e lura cfclot 10 

,eia2iBia ad* lo eiao \Jmo »taxiiBse ^«e asiioxWifB 

©li;^ od' iBliioiB y^ot xea^o^ifB to uevrcq ^talBiaou oJoa A 

,5:4"lqiJ2 .V oBaswQ to ©bbo ©xL,* aX iiisoo BlAi ©noted asw evodB 

o* fclsxl BBW xo-ctTo^^a "io iowo<i 9Xlc? nieieilv; ,OCS .qqA .III IOC 

-rfT:ooqira a«jw obbo issiS at chcjjoo aMd" to coJtdiaoq adT .Jcioi, od 

^©nio^^B to SaeiiBv ©rlT .f>0jrlo e^ioxid' -^d-i-joud-j/B edi^ ^jd 6e 

edi aJt ,d"9©tt© J&xls eoxiBj-adij-e al ^aleied coicJBi®Z)iaxioo uefcfiij 

d-BXl* ,Sxxi©d eoaeitfilb adi jensdcf snliBsqcje ©flo gdd e£ eaiBS 

i9v;oq 9dT .xiraot xii l>9J5>fleJx8 siooi eJt ssbo elri^f nJt d-nsri'iB?.' ©riJ 

-'ii/q xI*oi^<^8 J5iij8 nevla ^I'IbqIo ©0' Jai/oi ^xisiSsiJiJ't je aeotaoo oi 

i0ba9i Hiif banz^J-iroo T^ftioi'.i-t.rr. or!.t aoit ©awd-aBqeli b JbctB i>9i;a 

&l' doldM x^aiot^.. Jaoaia^irt to floiaactcoo b 

6d cfaimi d-i/d ,c*-n©msl)rt Isievea a ©sliodtfjiB d'on e&o6 i-clot 

-S- 



executed by a joint confession againot all the signers of the 
note. Keen v. Buiap, 236 111. 11, 14. 

It is our Gonrjltislon that zhe Y/arrant of attorney con- 
tained in the notes in this case is Joint, and the joint obli- 
gation of the signers of the notes, ^ia^i that the judgment 
agaihst appellant b3!' confession is void. The judgraent herein 
is reversed and the cause remanded v^lth directions to vacate 
the judf;:rn,ent by ccnfession t.aiven against appellant herein. 

Reversed and ren-anded with directions. 



exii to siensia 9d& LIm iBa.i 



iB9laOV 



-ilcfo 



to aoi^fis 



.8noi#«>eiJtf« diiti fieSceotmn ijas f)©si9Vf>r 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

Vss. 
SECOND DISTRICT J I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Kecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my oflSce. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and afi&x the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



Clerk of the Appellate Court 



AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within 
and for the Second District of the Gtate of Illinois,' 

Present — The Hon. FRED &, WOLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hone BL/VINE HUFFMAN, Justice 
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice 

JU.^S L. JOHNSON, Cleric g Q 5 I.A. 1 fi 3 

E. J. WELTER, Sheriff 



RE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On ^^■^^^' ^ 1940 
the Ooinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the i^ords and figures follcwlng, viz; 



om» 110, 952S MmtDA m» XB 














v.„ 



NA^S 0OLBT sa&~^f^*#Pff^:^t Oil ns- ) 

rrnino ccj!?-??t, a corporation } 

{^c&ii\sion Oil Seflnins Cceapanj, ) 

a Oori>orati on, ) 

Appellant), ) 




Appolleo atelniat,rator bi*oii:.-rht suit oc^isat JTet© Colby 
and th® Johnson cdl Hofliilng 0«5j>any, o> oorporatloa, for the 
all©«5©<!l vtron^il ftoath of Xs^seief Daraar, raaultins frars a ool- 
liflloa of an autoaobila ia t^ii<sh ah® was rldtns, with a truck 

own©d. and opKuratod bv i?Rte Colby » The dofondant, Colby, f ilod 
a oo?iateroleln a(5;alnjst appelle© Sdna Dnmer, who waa driving 
the aiitoraobile In which tlio deoe^ifsed was ridin^!, aad a|>5>oll©o 
adnlnl0t£»iitor» Thoroupon, -Idna IJaraer filed hor ooimtorolada 
asaiiist Colby iaxid appellant. Ot.tEi;p>aay, Trlel ros^ltod in v62»-» 
diet® for appalloos, t^Jliorobj tho Adsaiaistrator reoelvod ver- 
dict in th® eoa of $4000, mx& eountos^el aidant Sdna iJisriioar, 
v®ydlot in th& mm of $75 «^^ Foll,e!^as the -nettal saotions* 
Hvi&mmntii wex»© orstarod upon th® voMlots* Th© appoll«m.t, Joii.isoB 
Oil SefiniRC Caapftn^, pros^wtutsus this ap;rH3«il frosa Judgsa^nt 
re$'M^r&^ t^pon the vardlots as rotTirsasd at'piirist it* 



s a a p:ar rT: :T.. ' gr-'Xi,r «cx .:?x.TKrg,gi;'.'Ti: vzxt. ui^tssijs^swi 



be. 



OOTW bi 



^ fUjBlC 



It ^mB ctePg^sS hj th® ^pmll'&ms that C-'>lby wm: &p&mtln^ 
the isiotor tsniaic l«Tol¥®d in th# ©©llisioa, s® th® agent ej%& 
BWPVBMt of app»llfyit# Appellant m\eL Golby 40,ni^<S gaa^i alle^sa^ 
tion md air^ra*^ tli«^t appeHQnt wass sot the c^uitssr of tim tyuol;- 
and tJMt Oolb7 «as not the rif«s«t aM BQrwnxit of appollaiit, a© 
Qlmyg^j tmA nlleij®^. that apj*»lls,at w^s not t!i®n ©jsga^seji in, 
til© o|ieratl«sa of th« trwcic throufji Oolby as It© age^tt or tier* 
vsat, aid that it >m& no sotttrel oif«r oitlisr o^lhy or th^ truoit* 
Ttierefor©, the i3i0po».ltl©s5 ot tliifs a^'^petil rrj^ts upon tli© queat* 
ion, ^otJifjr OollJT m%B a«tiag «S8 tli© agont m:i^ ©©nrant of ap» 
pellsat. 

Appallfmt Is a oesc^ais;^^ ©jiga^^M In th© refining of artx&Q 
oil, atid la th© dlirtribution and asd© of prcsduets ocssaoij. to 
suoh Imauatry* la tJ^ ooti^uot of itB businGes, it Eiaintains 
omrt^ixi, otoJ'ssso or imlk station plants nbont the ©ountrj, ^hc^r® 
retail a«al#r0 are looated who tonfile Its products. The pur- 
pose of this bola,?? to faellitat® distrib^itloa to i*etail defll- 
ors* Pur)8viS35t to suo!i plan. It jasdntminetJ a 'bulk station plant 
at th# city of ?0©stonlen, in Dupage eoiMsty* 

OoVyj "m^gi et th® tSjEW In -^©stion, aotias as tla# loeaX 
m'fejm^r for ai>p®llaat, xmAfur writ tea ©ontrac^t, ifeloh was ©ntcev 
o4 isst© mii^i? dfitft of ^TanTi^arj 10, 1936« B7 the ters^ of t^s© 
ooatraot, Colby ?5.|p?®«d t© fisrot© M.a aatir® tiia® to solioittos 
0ale0 of i*€ifln.®d pustrol^tsss pii^oducJts for stpptlljmt, at prions 
to 1^ ©Btft'bllshed hf app©llmit, Tint© ©alas '^®r® to b® raad® ii% 
t^0 Kjf!^ of ap|>©32a!itj th& j^'^QhanM.am tintiil seoI^j and ttm -pro^ 
0«©ds ©f rnioh m.1^8-, ikt all tina« ro^aia©4 tti© prcj^rti' of 
a:^p0ll<mt. Col!>7 hj th& tona» of th® eonttraoti n.s2»a@4 to pr©vi4®» 



imlntain ami oporato at his mm axpen®©, ©ush ssotor trtiolin as 
U'^m&m.ry to jaake pi^per sal© mx& delivery of app©llaut*0 pro* 
di«?ts; that Sw» vfould p^ elX ta^:©© en sush ©qTAipEB^st and lluons© 
fee® th0.r®oa» «a r^^iulrwH bi' Imr, Colb5'*s oompsimatloa wxs up» 
cm a ooaiissloa baj«5,s» #itoh wns »©t out in d®tsll la the ooa* 
ti?4aet, and 4©p«nd0<J entirely upon the arsotint of appellaBt*® pro- 
dtjats h© was ?ibl© to rmlX* H© omil4 aot laal-© »alas oa credit, 
witliOTEt th© writtWG atjthDflty of mpp ollaat* lie waa r®Qalr@<l to 
pfcrride4jmblio liability m<t& prc^erty a.a»ag© iKssjranae upon his 
jaoter ®?jyli»5«nt # gX SiSb owi oxponso, niiSht to tsrslnate th« 
eoatrasst was ei^^ss. to 0it.her partj «it any tissB* 

•Hi© «Tld«ne® OQsielij«ively s^owa thst tli© triiok «sa0 o^m^^d 
hj Oolb7» ^® <3imt-iw.et Is snbstajitlallj the ssiao as that -^iloh 
c^lst®^ in the oene of H^otlbb y. '"tan4®rf©r, 296 I/-l« ^^pp* 14.5 » 
rsM tia^er tbat ease and the authorities tb@r© rofoired to, it 
^Kmld appear that Calfey w?«.s aa indepojulomt oontraetor, tiMer 
hl» »4lP««ra©n-t with appellant, 

'7hm re©o?^ ®nd a%ithorltios refarreil to la t-hls eaao, have 
h^mi ©areftaiy ©asaaaiaed* 'A'Siil© It 1« trtie that O0II17 v&b sn- 
g^jsjis^ in th^ regiitlar trade and tit^sdnesa of «";|>®llcmt in sclieit- 
lag »ale!i of it 8 pro<la,0t© tm& in th& deliv®ry thereof, yot h© 
di^ @io ©atliE^ly upcsa liis om% tils® and ima »o way in th® ©ontrol 
of ®|fp®llRjnt, «xm»pt in thssiggmor e^t out \r/ the ooatrjiet, nnfl 
trim t&is iastmuasxit it wcmlA «pp«er that t&® will of anpeilaat 
is dCEsijiimt only ae to tfe® «ltlnmt© rsstslt to b© obtainsd sand 
not a© to tli« rmasis by issiiloli it wcs to b® ©ooorapliMiM. '.'aay 
sttthoritlffiss «ft.y feo fotsad bearljc^ wpGU th© qu^sticm iavolved 
lior^ia, but w® ooasldar thoa® rtfsrred to la ^ob^jj v, f-:t.'?aid@rf©r, 
supra*, asj isiffloiaatly o<«px'®h©n®iv0» 

-3. 



-llr 



io- 



iat.. 



e*r<- r 



t*^i®tises app^llaJit's siarahandiao woiil^l b© flcillY^reu to 
tho bulk plmit by rail, s«aa at ot&ar tla^® by ccBspfMiiei® o.f js^JN- 
Bonn ee^ajgM in ths* tmokini? biisljaesB, At tb.0 tlrs© la quoatlon, 
CkJlbj^ sad a rma zi^iaaed Oba^istlsia ha4 be^^B t© appslXant*® plant 
at Ciiicago lUi0itef \iimr^ th^^y pe§ur®d twaiT© barrels of oil 
and m quasttlty of gire-na© ?m«l alooljoX for motor T©liiol©s.» Col^ 
paid Ctoisti€ui for sEsakiag th@ trlp» mid Christian did raoat of 
th« driTli\f4, At appsllaiit*a plaiit, ^femi tli© bill of ladlJif, ws« 
uoapi©t©4 Tor th© Sir<shiiri(ai0e, appsllaat'a pleuit sup^rlaienOiiat 
ir*q'air©d of Colbj to 'w^csa th@ truck belor^©e* Colby ropllit4 
that It "bQloni^^ to C2iri0tiaa, mtCk 0}s5.*i3tia2i ©Ignoa th.© l:>ill of 
IMiiis for th.9 a@r<3Jiaii<lls©, Tims it a|sp@eii*s appellaat Jmd 210 
kaovd^d^e of tho faat that its Ei©r«han3is® was boinij ta^ajisport- 
©4 to it® ^ulk plant at P«ioatoaloa by Colb:r»8 trijck. 

App0ll©©s hnvQ fllsd th#lr aotion to pi'aseiit and Intr©* 
<Jwe odrfcaia avtdans® la this oourt to i»hleh th® trial ofturt 
miiftalnod o'bJQOtlonBw Th® ap.psllees h«v© prosflai.it fs^ no ©rose 
a^P0!Sl ®st<J aaeig?! no oros:3 ©i*ror^» l^^rofore, w® do not d««m 
it n#0®,8;gisry to oonsldor susls, motion la th« Siapositlon of this 
appeal . 

Tlio jud|5E^nts hor©in agalasst appellairit nr@ iwsrorsed. 

Jiaiigraents roYo^sod* 



r>J .''^'r^/V.t.^•*>^ n-' 



'io xxjttf 



itmi^'itt <uii 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

SECOND DISTRICT J""' I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and afl&x the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . -^ day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- — 



Clerk of the Appellate Court 



AT A TERM CF THE APPELLATE COURT, 
Begun and held at Ottawa, on TueGday^ the 6th day of February, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within 
and for the Second District of the Gtate of Illinois,' 

Present — The Hon. FRED G, 'i/OLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hone BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice 
Hon. FPJJ^IKLIM R. DOVE, Justice 
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk ,., ^i a^ _ i 



E-. Jo WELTER, Sheriff 






' 164 



BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-xiat: On APR o'\3^'' 
the Oioinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the words and figureo follcwing, viz; 



am, NO. 953] 



AGEI^JDA ¥,0. 21. 



IN TT-E APPZLLATS COURT OF ILLINOIS 
SECOND DISTRICT 
lY TMmirP% D. 19A0./'' 






SADIE YEATES, et^,„^';"^^.* 

Appellants, 

vs. 

SCHOOL DIItSCTORS OF'^ISTRICT 
NO. 38, COUIWY 0I<' KAl^KMUHE .IIID 
STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

Appellees, 




P2AL FROM CIRCUIT COXP.T 
KANKAKEE COTOrfY. 



IIUFFL-IAIJ - J. 

Appellants as taxpayers of appellee district, brought 
their complaint to restrain appellee directors fron building 
an additional roora to the school house in said district and 
making certain other new and additional iiaprovenents thereto. 
A temporary v/rit issued. Upon final hearing, the temporary 
injunction was dissolved and appellants coiaplaint dismissed. 
This appeal follov/s. 

Ward Mills, Richard Zimmeiman and Cora Nichols were 
the directors of the district. The school building was an 
ordinary one room fraiie building, which had been kept in 
good repair and was designated as a standard school. On Sat- 
urda^nlght, September 10, 1933, a special election was held 
for the purpose of submitting the question of whether of not 
a new schoolhouse should be built, and whether or not bonds 
of the district to the amount of $5000, should be issued 
therefor. At the conclusion of the election, it was announced 



ie$' 



8I0TIIJ.II 10 TilUOO SCTAJJ?''-"^ 

ToiJjTsia cmoosie 



\ ^ v 

T)!UOO TIirOHIO ^09^ .L.:vl^ ( ^.. .BV 

.YTPiUOO ,1 

■THiTosPTa jooHoa 

( . ?2 

( 

( .aselleqqA 



,1 - ^J^ir?'inJH 

itilSJjoitf .d-olid-ajtfi aelleqqE lo aioxJBQ^tfiJ' aB a;}TXj3XIe<iqA 

sniiill ucf ifiOT:!: siod-os-xlf) BBlL^qq^G alanieiei o& iatBlqmoo iledi 

fifljs folitBlb blBR ai eetrori loorioe arl* od* mooi iBnold-ififcB rts 

,o>t0ie£{J' eJ-newevoiqiHi iBxiol^lMfl Aitfl wan rrextd'o niBd-ieo ^cliiBxn 

Yiflttoqflied' edit tSnliBQil latill noqU .fjeuaai d-liv; YiBioqneJ" A 

.b&aah5.Btb J-jcijBlqmoo sctTLellaqgs f>ns berloBBlb sjsw nolcfaniftni 

• awoIIoT: Ijseqqfi aJtrlT 

ei8W BloxloiM atoO 1)Iijb OBmn&irtmlS. biJiiiot91 ^bLLUA biB'S 

as ^sm axilf)Ili;cf looiloa sxlT .ioiistal^ arid- "io aa:o;^o©aJ:Jb ©rid" 

ax iqeiL need bad rioiilw ,an Ub I2x;d Qmsnt kooi eno -^iBnibio 

-Jflc orioa fiisJooaita b sb Jbsd-flnsieef) bbv boBitesqei fioog 

fiXeri asw coi^osXs Iflioeqa b ,8C9X ,0X I9<:fraeitqd8 ,Msl£Mft«fii'^ 

Joxi ^o lexld-srfw 1o nbicTaex/p ©xicf sflid-cMisrfya to QGO<tttirq ©xld" n©! 

Eshnod iton io •s^exljfBrhr bus td-Xlird ed fiXi/orfa aacrarHooxloa wee b 

£i30aRl ecf fiXwoile ,0005*^ lo ;tiu;oatB diW" o^ :t61i;^alb eriJ lo 



that both propositions had carried, and on the next norning, 
which was Sunday, directors viills and Ziinnerman employed 
certain persons to move the schoolhouse off its foundation. 
On Septeraber 1^, 193Q, the circuit court of Kankakee county 
issued a restraining order against the directors of the dist- 
rict, restraining them from proceeding xvith the construction 
of a new school building and from issuing any bonds therefor, 
by virtue of the special election. This restraining order is 
still in force. School has been held in the usual school 
building. 

The complaint in this case v/as filed on August S', 1939, 
to restrain the directors from erecting a nev/ addition of one 
room to the schoolhouse and from making certain other new im- 
provements thereto, according to a contract which they had 
entered into at a meeting held on J\ily 17, 1939. Directors 
Mills and Zimmerman voted for such addition and improvements, 
and the making of contract therefor. 

Director Nichols voted against the proposed addition 
and improvements to the schoolhouse. She had been a director 
of that district for thirty-five years. It appears that she 
voted against the erection of the additional room and the 
construction of the other proposed improveQients, because of 
the fact that there were only two pupils attending the school, 
and that neither of them were a resident of the district. One 
of the students was a niece of director Mills, who had cone 
from Momence to his home and had started to the school. She 
was about seven years old. Diiring the third week of school, 
director Zimmerman brought a boy about thirteen years of age, 
to stay at his house, from another district. Ml of the child- 
ren who live in the district are attending school at the city 

-2- 



bexoiqme rLSjirisnmi:^ bOB a Hi! I &io^OQtlb ^x^bauQ asw rioJtiIw 

.noi&Bbnsjo'i iicM 1:10 aex/oxlloorloc ^di svom od- Brtoatsq; aip.&ieo 

X^mjoc) eaaissLriBS "to ;tijjoo tlifoito etli ,feC^I ,-M iscfwdd'qee nO 

-tpAh odS to BT:o;J-oaalfc ^Ai tsata^B i©*rro j^JcnlsicJ-esa jb Jbeiraal 

nolcfoi/aid-anoo 9x1 1 rid-iw sxilbeeooiq noil is.bA& ^iaiBiisei ^&t>ti 

.loleisrivt eJbnorf y^b paliresl moil fcna anJtfillwcf loorloa wsrr a lo 

81. i9Mo snixiljptnctBei airiT .nol-JosXo Izlobqs sxi^ lo suJ-niv •v:cf 

looxloe JLai/Bif ericf nl 6Icx.( need aM loorioS .eonol ni IIltB 

,9C9X ,? cfaosii/A ito 68111 gbw aaeo alrl* al &at&LqBioo odl 

9IIO lo noL&lbbB wen b gnid'oono jnorrl Bio&oanLb ed^ jaJLeid-Bet ocf 

-mi W9n rred^o alBCfiso sxiistain moil brts eai/oxlXooxloa Qdi oi irrooa 

fjBXl Ysrfd" rioijdw d-OBicfjioo b oi 3jc1L-iooob ,od-9n9rld" edrisaevoTq 

aioc^ooiJta .?C^I t'^-I^ ■^JJ^"'' ^o ^Xo£L snid-»6n b ctB octTLt fie^gJ-ns 

,acJn3fflevoiqai baa aolSibbB xioya lol beior oBonotsml'^ baa alXlM 

.lolaiarid iOBi^aoo lo s^li^xa eriiJ- J&job 

aol^J-ibJbB beaoqoiii ©^^ d'aJilBSB JbeJ-ov slod&lii io;foeilC 

lo&OQilb B neecf bad ©/IB .eax/orllooxIOB eilJ' oJ- a&ami&voiqjsu boB 

aria J-firiJ artBeqqa tl .aiBeY erll-xiiMi rtol d-olid-elii &bA& lo 

arid' fiCB iHoorr lBaoi:;tll)l)fl eri^ lo noiioeio Bd& Jaxila^ fceJov 

lo 8B/jfi09cf ,ad-neipevoiqi2l fieeoqoiq tedto edi lo nold-otrrd-ai-oo 

,Ioo£loe eriJ Sffil)xi8d'd-B allqi/q owJ- ^Xco eiew ©isrlJ' c!-flri.t ^obI ed^ 

enC .c}-olrt;j-eJtJ& eritf lo ia&bl^&i b ei&w asriJ- lo i®dil9ix SBdi ba» 

exnoo iJBil odv »eIIJtM toioe-iib lo ©oeln a aBW a^^ziebir^e ailcJ" lo 

Qxfa .loorios sil;t o;f £r9ifnB4"8 bad baB emod Bid oi ©orreiao'?? f^vr'V 

jIoorioB lo ^e&w b%ld& sxi^ anliirtl ,blo BiBex neves iitoi.. z...- 

,933 lo siBSY nee;^:ilil^ itioda y;od b cMl-iroicf aBm%&rm.ici rt.o^itOBilb 

"bltdo sricT lo IIA ,iQti!talb i9d&or. .^rauQA airi ia yjb^b oi 

•^itio 9xld- j-fl loorloa Tiaibas&ts erf* &olitstb odi al erll oitur aei 



of Momence, 

The testimony of director 2jimrcerEian is to the effect that 
he has a boy living in his home who has been there about two 
v/eeks, and whose parents live in another district; that the boy 
is thirteen years old; helps on the farm, and attends this 
school. The testimony of director Ivlills is to the effect that 
he thinks the building needs the proposed addition and improve- 
ments; that the election for the new school was on Saturday 
night, and that he moved the building off the foundation at 
eight o'clock the next morning; that he did not know what 
arrangements the children in the district had for attending 
school at Momence; that he did not make any inquiry to find 
out; that he entered into the contract for the proposed vrork, 
not knov/ing if any children were going to school; that a little 
girl stays with him and goes to schooi^; that her father lives 
in iioiH6nce; that he has no way of knowing if a family night 
move into the district with children of school age; and that 
he ovms no land in the district. Cora Nichols testifies that 
the parents of the children are paying the tuition incident 
to their attending school in Momence. 

It is the position of appellants that appellees, as dir- 
ectors of the school district, had ho power to contract for the 
construction of an additional room to the schoolhouse, mthout 
a vote of the people, when such room was not needed for the ac- 
commodation of the pupils of the district. In support of this 
proposition, they refer to the case of Kujkendall v, Hughey, 
224- 111. App. 550. Such was the holding in that case. There 
is no claim made by appellees that the additional room proposed 
to be constructed is needed for the accommodation of the students 
at this school. As a matter of fact, it is apparent such posi- 
tion could not be maintained, as there is no dispute but that 

-3- 



owi tuods ©leiio iiead asd orfw ©aioii aid ul 5»«irvil "^ocf b bjch au 

Tjocf exi^J' ii3ild' jJ'oiad'ell) u©iiJoxu& ai evil ad"n»tc«q seoriw Ijob ,e3ldew 

alii^t^ 3l>£et^« Jaiid lOrisl exit no aqiexl ii)Io soiiex xieoitnilxlJ eX 

tadi Joel'i'?^ • '+ -->(>• aJt alXiM lod'oeiifc lo x^tomld'asd- exIT .Xooxloa 

-©▼oiqaJt iix.._ iJbs bQ6Qqpi<i ^sii ei>ooc ^JtliXXxxtf odJ^ aatuXxl* ail 

YfiMuJ-JB^ ao aew Xooilos won oxi^ aox noli^ooXe sdi tasii ;aia9» 

iB coitfBX/Xiuol Oil J llo 8fllf>X±Afd sxlj tavoa axl iarii bas , txiaia 

«f»ilw woiu ri> 0x1 d^BXl* jsxilxinoia ^»n oxlJ- siooXo'o d-xla-t© 

Si:i:fcit©tt;i'e %o'i bad ioliiBlb edi al. MTbildp &di staev^si^aBi'ia 

bail o;J- y,iii,C'al x^s &;isoi d"Oxi ibiii sil d'axtJ' ;«oxr»xaoU J-a Xoodoa 

,i^ow JbaeoqoTtq ©4* lot iOBiiaoo edi fiial beietae ed iad^ iiuo 

eltcMX a ;^jex14" {Xooxioa cJ^ SJaXog ei&w aeiMXxlo xa* ^-t S^Jtwo^Cirf toa 

aeriX i.9dtBt -led iBd& iloodos. oj seojj jbxi^ cilxl d;J-J:w axx?d"s Xilg 

d^xtaijn \lljmt b tl ^atnoa^ to ybw oxt aaxl axl t£,di' jeoaecEoi; ai 

*Brl:f Lru; ;esB XooxIob lo astbildo d;Hv ioti^SilL edi octni e-voai 

i&di Bsitlfasl eXoiioX'^I eioO ♦ ^rolicfaJil) ; axi# fi I>cubX pxs exiwo ©xl 

4-ii9£txoiiX iaoxi^iirtf 64-* gulYfiq e^B xiaiBXixIo exit lo eJaaiJSQ exl* 

. aoxiexooM nl looxloe sJCiXi>xii»;^tB ai^il»f o4^ 

-lib 3i8 ,8«&iX»Qq* ;tsxi# eJ-xiBXXeqqi! 1:0 , aoWlaoq &di aX cM 

exicT lOt cTOj^iJ-f :'Xf) X|30xloB exid" lo anoJpe 

cttjoxid-xw ,9ejjoiiXoo4*>a ^4^ &>}■ layO'i XibiwXrfXlt4>«; xie. "io coXJ-oiJiid-engif 

-OB 8x1 1 aol ^eX^QfO ;^oxr aBw moon, doxra xraxfw ,aXqoaq. sxld- lo e;l-or a 

exxIiT lo d-'5:ocsQys al .Joixiteil) exlcf tp sXJitjfrq .exlcf ^,iioXitBf>aip©p 

tX®-fiSifH ,v XXpl>fle3iYXi2 la eeao axld- per lalea xed;t jXtol^laoqo^iQ 

atraxiT .sbjso &M& al s^nX^Xoxi exi* bbw xfoxxa .O^i ,q,giA *S,11 ^^ 

Xjaaoqciq sssaoi laajoiilJbbB ©xli d"Bxlcr aaeXXocfqfl X'4 ©X>^ xiXbXo oxi eX 

ad"fleJS>i;d"e axld" to xiol*fl5oxaraocofl exl? %ot fofiaoc aX , J)©cro*fif ^f^axiop, acf .oif 

-xaoq xloxje iei&%»qqgi a,X il ^^n&X to iqUbh b aA .Xooxloa aXxIi^ cts 

d'Bxid' cfyd aJ'irrrc-cb on ni: -s'ToiLt as fhonxBSxilAin ©cf d'oa BXiroo xioXd" 



only two students are attending the school and that neither of 
theiu come from homes v/ithin the district, hut are apparently 
residing therein tenporarily. 

The affiirs of school districts are intrusted to officers 
geherally designated as directors. The legislature in the 
fullness of its power, has seen fit to so intrust the adminis- 
tration of the conduct of schools in general, to the discretion 
of the directors or Board of IHducation, as the case may be. 
Hov/ever, this is so oialy as distinguished between the directors 
and the patrons of the district. The board of directors may 
not go beyond their legal power and authority, as they are only 
agents appointed by statute to carry out the systeri provided 
for. They have no powers except such as are conferred by legis- 
lative act, or such as may arise by necessary implication, and 
ordinarily, doubtful claims of power are resolved against them. 
It is true they have a wide discretion in natters intrusted to 
their care, yet they are but an administrative body, charged 
with the duty of administering the law vdth respect to the 
public school within their district. It is their duty to ad- 
minister the affairs of the district as directed by statute and 
within the power and authority vested. Their personal differ- 
ences cannot be perraitted to injuriously affect the Interest of 
the taxpayers of such district, and when the situation comes to 
that place, their conduct may properly be restrained by injunc- 
tion at the instance of such taxpayers. From the record in this 
case, v/e find nothing tending to prove that the additional room 
is necessary for the accommodation of the students attending 
the school. 

The judgment of the lower court is therefore reversed and 
the cause reaanded. 

Reversed and remanded. 
-U- 



;.i£ li/cf ,d^olad-8tft »ilcf flliid-iw BPinori iaont ©moo medif- 

Bieeitlo Oif b&^^iJiiat old a^^olnifaiJb loorfoa 'io c.iiAtlB o/l? 

-alalmbM sifct d-ftu'xJnl oa od* &11 a»Q& sisrf ,i»woq ecfl to saenlJjrl 

xiold'8i9eJt& eild^ o,t ,lBie«6a al elooriot lo toirfenoo 9ii& to rrold'flliJ" 

,dd T:j»in eaao oxf;f sjb ,aaiJ^soirM to MboS 10 ertoJooilJi qH^ to 

eiod-oetif) orfJ- nesw^srf forfBlirgfil^teljc as -^Icto 08 al aid* ,ievowoH 

YJSiH. e'lodOBii;!') to £>iJEO<f sdT .cfaiicTftlfi e>dt to axioiJ-jBq erit f>as 

XLa.0 arte varict ae ,-\jcMnof(i}'j/.o biixi rcewoq; Isjj^-Jt lierict fino^ecf og c^on 

fcdf>J:TO'5q mo^^aya ed;t d-xro '^iiso ocT ©cTi/^b;*?. xsf i^e^nJtoqqjB cdrissB 

-exssi \;tf bst^dtnoo ota e.B tit>uB &qttoxe oiewoq oa svjBxi y^J^T ,iot 

J5£tB .aol:fBolS.qBii xi&azQOea Tjd' oai-XB yjsie ae riowe no ,ctoe ©vital 

,aedif jenlssfi fioYlcaen 8ib newoq to emlsLo Lutidisob ,YliiBfiJtMo 

ot bet&untai. eisctcrsi;?. ni nolJerroaili sijiv/ a evBri yexlct oin::t el 5^1 

fisS^iBilo ,YfeO(f 9Vjt*jBid-aliiim6jB xia Jircf eis yeilJ- ;f9Y ,©i£0 'xiodi 

erIcJ- ocf J^oeqaai ricfjhv wbI 9x1* sciieJelnlaba to x*J^^ ©Jtl* riJlw 

-bjB ot Yt*^*> iledi at cM .J-oxi^aif) tJterid" atAStMr loorioa ollcfuq 

I)i3B ©.trrcfGd-B x^ bsfoo'ilb BR doJtid-elfi ©xld^ to 8i±Btta sxld" rra^talulai 

-lettib IsnoBieq '5:i9xlT .Jbsd'aev- -^cMioiIJoe &nB lewoq &d& filriJ-lw 

to d-eoiarf-fii srtt d-oettjs Y^EwoJtix/tflt od- Jbejf'd'JtEnsq ©rf ctonxiBO ssone 

o.t Bonoo aolt&ufiB edt H©r(w fms jCtoiii-eib dona to eisYflqzBd- ©if;f 

-oni/ti^-^ Ycf ibsniaicfasn ©d Y-^^^Qioiq t^mi tsvbaoo -xlodd- ,908lq *sri* 

elrict al bioi^ei eAS cioi'? . ei9YBq:x:BJ' do;;s to oouBCfaDJ: ©dcf jb noxcf 

moort lBfloid'iJE>I>« ©ri;t d^sdif evctq ocf s^i^fl®* sniili'ofl finlt ew ,3gB0 

Siiifina^d-js atiiofiu^a ©dcr to aolteboamoooB ©do- rtot yibsb^oow al 

..£oodoe ©ri# 
£>xi3 l>9Qisvo's ertotaiadt si ttsico lewol edd" to d'xiexns^0t, ei?T 

.i>©l»iU3flf©a ©axTBO exivt 

-^- 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

SECOND DISTRICT J I. JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of lUiuois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my ofBce. 

In Testimony Whereof. I hereunto set my hand and aflfix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

. in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



OlerJc of the Appellate Oourt 



^ 



AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, within 
and for the Second District of the Gtate of Illinois: 

Present — The Hon. FRED G, WOLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hon„ BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice 
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice 
JUSTUS L= JOHNSON, Clerk 
E, J. WELTER, Sheriff 



2_ 

30 o I»A« 1 64 



BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On "^^'^'^ b i^-'L' 
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the words and figures f oil c'//ing,. viz; 



C-m. NO. 950^ 



AQMDA NO. 6 



IK TFIE APPELLATE OOURT OF ILLINOIS, 
SSCOlvTD DISTRICT 



^-^«^UARY TE|M, ^D. 1940. ^ 



-r 

VilLLIAJc LATTIN, as J^Jginistrat^ 

of the Estate of nowara"i^ttin, ) 





vs. 

CITY OF 2'.I0N, a luunicipal Corpor- 
ation, ) 

) 
Appellant. ) 



AJPFEIJL FRO>J CIRCUIT COURT 
LAiS GOTINTY. 



Per Ouri?j.-!i. 

This was an action by appellee to recover for tiie wrongful 
death of his minor son Howard. Briefly stated, the facts out 
of which this case arose, are as follows: On Christmas eve, 
December 24, 193S, the deceased, Albert /mclam and John Tietz, 
spent nest of the eveniio^^ and night together visitint; at various 
taverns. Soraev/here near the hour of 4:00 o'olooJi on the morning 
of Decenber 25th, thejr left a tavenn knovm as Scotty's Place, on 
a notorcycle ovmed and operated by /uiclam. They were proceeding 
east on 21st street, which is an outlying street but v.-ithin the 
corporate limts of aiopellant city. It appears to be a rather 
untravelled street, without raany people livinr' in the vicinity 
of the place of the fiocident. When the boys left SGot1i>s Place, 
they mounted Ariclsxa's raor.orcycie, with x-!^'-!.clan riding in front 



and controlling the operation of the machino. Tiets was riding 












.r.t.3lnijr0 ne^T 

no .©ofilT: a'^*;J-ooE ee nwomf craeTa^ a ^TteX •'joili ,i!ct?S lecfn^oeCI lo 
QfilJDeeooaq: eiew '^OifT ,aal0iiA yd" j&e^stecr- " '-^awo eloYOioitox!! s 



directly behind Anclan and the deceased was riding directly 
behind Tietz. In this manner they proceeded east on 21st 
street to a place about six hundred Teet east of the residence 
of Robert Uherry. Hore, the city through Vv.F.A, \vorIc, had 
been engaged in filling in a lov; place on 21st street. This 
fill Vv-as about tvvc hundred sixty feet in length. It was higher 
than the old roadbed at both the west and east ends of the 
fill. It consisted of dirt which had been taken fron the sides 
of the road, and which at the time in Question was frozen and 
very rough. It appears that only one travelled track esisted 
across this fill. There ■'A'sro tvro flares at the west end of 
the fill and txvo flares st the east end. Onl^^ one of the flares 
was burning at the time, which was at the west end of the fill 
and to the sovxth side of the road, ftlien iUiclam approached this 
fill fron the west, he states that he did not see it nor the 
flare, imtil too late to avoid the accident. V/hen the motorcycle 
hit the fill, it threw Anclam and Tietz clear of the nachine, 
and they apparently sustained no injuries of oiiy consecuence. 
The deceased evidently becanc fastened tc the machine, and 
sustained injuries froin which he died. The evidence shows that 
after the riotoroycle hit the fill, it proceeded east for a 
distance of about two hujidred forty eiglit feet, where it cam-c 
to a stop at tho side cf the; road and iu an upright position. 

The trial resulted in a verdict in fevixyr of appellee in 
the sum of ;if2000, and appellant brings this appeal from judg- 
ment rendered thereon. 

It is the position of appellant that the deceased was 
guilty of oontributoa'y nen;ll-5ence and this is considered to 
be th'^ controllin.;:; factor in the case. 

-2- 



:b naifiii eiiw bsE-seoab eric)" Las malonA balded ■^tli'osilf) 



sx/iT 



eoi>. 



5CT. 



2.t. 



©lOV.l 



r( owJ" Ji;ocffi 8£W I 111 
oo« 0ffd bXo-99 9i •ifil^ oo. ,eTaXl 



»ei'iiiioam &il^ ^o asoXo s*©lT bac liiaXooA weiil«7 



xxf 



, 90.a0i;>>e9il0-. 



iar' ooRshi 



.aoisiaQKi j£i§iuqif 



>X4w icovl ealruff^ai fieci£;^3x;e 

cflxi ©XeTtonOkfoffi ©do 

uaJeiJb 
-bis ©ii 



-^^ 






-?J- 



Anclaxi and 'Tietz both, testified that they did not see 
the flare before striking the fill. There is nothinf? to in- 
dicate what the deceased saw, or what he ni-":;iit have said to 
the other two boys. Their tastlniony is silent on that point. 
It appears that the Cherry rosidence is at the top of a slight 
hill and about six hundred feet west of the ivest end of the 
fill. Fron the Gharry residence to the fill, is dov;:ihill. 
After the accident, Tistz v/alked bacis to the Cherry residence 
to secure help. This vvas shortly after four o'clock on Christ- 
rias morning. Cherry went with Tietz to the scene of the ac- 
cident. He testified, as a witness on behalf of appellee. He 
states that as he left his house, he could see the flare burn- 
ing at the west end of the fill . He found the motorcycle with- 
in about fifty feet of the east end of the fill. Tietz testi- 
fies that when he started back with Cherry to the scene of t.ae 
aocidenx. , lie saw the flare burnln.g. Cherrv returned to his 
residence aiid reported the accident to t.he police departnent 
and ca3 led for an ambulance. Officer Sinpson reported in a 
police car. The deceased was sent to the hospital. Cherry re- 
turned to the scene of t.he accidenfe and then wont to the police 
station. At the police station, .toclam and Tiet.-z were question- 
ed by various of th« officers then on duty. Their statetients 
regarding the accident vrere rather vague. In effect, thoj 
nerely stated that thej'- did not see the fill iintil tJiey were 
upon it and did not see the flare, and that when they .bit the 
fill they xveve throvm from t.he machine and did not reriember 
anything thereafter unbil the;'' came to at the side of the road. 
Anclam stated that he was going forty-five piiles an hour. 
Tietz did not Know now fast they were goin;-^, but thour^ht it was 
faster. The evidence is in dispute as to the st^ite of sobriety 

~3- 



©?>.•-. joa bib vjj.i )l11ia9t riv^ 

.inlocf itadt no itaal -aii 



eoaeblete'S. xrxeii 
-oa oitj '10 aneoe ? :.'» jn»w -^iieiit' 

•dd^lw eXo^o'iCK; 

•/•xisiiU rfcfiw atorcl i-'OJ-.- 

. :B;tlciBOi - '' "' 



;m 



ao£ €>il;r ^e^ancA 



^fljn 



.-te 
iQifvf jBiiJ- asxl 



r.fp'^-trp ©TOV 






??*r^ 



.JjBOI ;. 



lira ©vx 

atos eitwr "^•rftf *Bi 



oasMv: 






:©*fefl1 



of Anolara and Tiotz. Anclam stated liis age to be 18. 
Tletz stated his age to be IB, The deceased was 16. 

Offioer Sirapson v/ho ansv/ercd the call placed by Cherry, 
testified that he savr the flare at the west end of the fill 
when he was about four blocks -.vest thereof, iuiclaiQ, Tietz 
and Cherry v/ere there v/aiting for hin. He found the deceased 
lyins at the Gide of the road. Officer Ruesch vient to the 
scene of the accident. He states that ^vhen approaching the 
fill from the xvest, he saw the flare container at about five 
hundred fifty feet distance. AppslLont's v/itness "/vilson, 
accompanied officer Simpson and states that he sav/ the flare 
burning as they approached the fill frora the weat, and that 
in his opinion, thoy first sav/ it at a distance of froa three 
to four blocks west of the fill. 

The road at the place in question was not closed to 
traffic. 17.?. A. labor had been engaged ffon time to tino 
dtiring the './inter, filling in this ].ow place by throwing 
dirt from the sides of the road into the travelled portion 
thereof. The tostinony is that the travol on this road is 
rather infrequent. The witness Oherry, who appEHently lived 
the nearest to the fill, states that h.e had been using it in 
driving to and fi'on his liome and his vxork. He says that the 
ground was frozen and rou,^h and that over this fill there was 
but one travelled track. "L']ach end of the fill was soraev/hat 
higher than the surface of the old road, and therefore caused 
a. raise or bui:!:.p. /Inclarn. states th.^t he had tho hoadlisht of 
his motorcycle turned on and could see tv/o hundred feet down 
the road frora the use of the headlight. He further states 
that he applied the brakes of the motorcycle about sevent:y- 
five feet before he reached tho west end of the fill, but that 



.BX «tf o* 08J8 ttid ft*^9#" '"•XsrrA .acfalT brus niaXonA ^o 

_XflO Sri;* £s«E8wa£[s orfw xioa<jin.t& rrsoXlU 
L'fi »iW to fine ifBow -d *flii4" i>^11X^so;^ 

:ooX<f I0ol j^i/ocfa B6-W exi neriw 

eneoe 
ovi: -^vr end' nioil 11 tt 

o-^..- 3W »ii d*a* a«*Bia 6iija xioBqxttia flcdoi^lo feein 

&Dn^ it lilt Oil;*' 6eiiCBcn(TQB x^Hit sjb sniaiuJ 

- d-jwlt X9d& ,noXiiigo aXrt ni 
. . t ed& to ^8ow aalooXrf ^i/pt ot 

"--jq ijoXX<4VBid 8rl;t o-*^ •■— t 9Ai to £>«1jXe eilcf ntyit t'llb 
-" ■' ^ ..." r.^ ^ ^- pjk -^cMaJtifR^cf orflj .loeTced* 

^,.., j^,. , , . .juiO «B»ii^iw 8iiT . J-iceirpeitci litA^ei 

._ . . ,^..-..i.^ naarf fijwl »rf J-ad;f aed-ai-a ,XX.tt «dt o.t JaeT;;5efl ©iii 
erf J- :ied> r: :;ie. .:!.' ."itttv/ alii ficc emii cW iaoit fiiie oct ftnivlll) 

^elX^Vfli;^ oao ia<i 

net^&t. \^c 10 eaiBi a 

£r»^, -iud ow;t 9©8 j&Xtfoo bise go .f)s.crijjtf 9Xo"?t«oJor2 aid 

39;tJS*B TSilJ-. . j-xts,llij£.»il sistct to day ©iid" mortt f>Boi eiicT 

-'iJnevse J-jJocfB sXorji J JsslXgqjfi 9Ji tBdt 

iarii iac lo bam J-ew ^tsd i-set ©Tit 



he does not remember an3rbhlne after lie hit the fill. The 
evidence is not in dispute that the maohine proceeded almost 
across the fill before it left the road ?nd stopped in the 
ditch at tho side thereof. The ir.otorcycle had a third wheel 
attachr.ont, v/hich apparently kept it in an upright position. 

The deceased had been in the coxripany of Anclan; and 
xiet^ KioRt of the nirht, sjid. had araple opportunity to ac&uaint 
hlmsiGlf v/itji all the surroundint-; circvurLstances, and tc deter- 
r.iine v."hether he desirad to ride as a third passenger on this 
motorcj'-cle. The accident v/as indeed a regrettable one. 

This court is of the opinion that the verdict is not 
supported by the evidence. 

Judgraent is therefore rcvcrccd and the cause re^manded. 

Reverfred and remanded. 



edl .lilt etii ild exi is&'ie r^atA&X'^'^ ledioamsi &oa aeoA eil 

L iiastf J&jsJl ii6B£epa& sat 
aixld" xio - r':^ is ca aiijta: oc^ fesrileei; art rteri-^feflw sflJua 



STATE OF ILLINOIS,, 

SECOND DiSTEiCT J'"'' I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON", Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Kecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

__^ in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty-. • 



QUrk of the Appellate Court 

(73947), 



41095 

MABX B. SEVIilH, Administratrix _,„.-"' " ) f | 

of the £ state of AlbejJ: ■:. :.0*ler, ) / APt-^AL FROM DBDfiR OP 

|}«eeaeed« y"""']^ / J I / 1 

Apijlrlll^t, ) I ^^FtelOR GOURf OP 

V. "" ^ / ) COOI COUNTY aMKTlHCJ 



CHARLES P. -flSOAM, Trustee of-im© ) A NSW TRIAL, 

Chioago and ?^ortii <e^|%rn Railway ) i 

Company, & eon>oraJfe|fon, ) QAC^T/\ 1A^ 

Appellee, ) O^/tJ X^ri« XO'^-* 

MR, JUSTICE O'COKIOR DSLIVERSD THE OPINION OF TRIf: COITRT. 

Fladntlff brought suit ag&lnet defendant under the pro- 
vielons of the Federal Employers' Liability aot to recover for tiie 
death of her hueband. There was a Jury trial and a verdict and judg- 
vent in plaintiff's favor for ^15,000, a ne»f trial was awarded and 
this eourt granted leave to appeal. 

The record disolosee that Albert £. Bevier was employed by 
defendant as a brakeaan and between 9 and 10 o'clock on the night of 
May gl, 1937, the southbound freight train oonelBtlng of 86 ears, on 
whlGh Sevier vae employed as head brakeman, stalled while goine^ up a 
rather steep hill about 2 miles north of Buda, IllinolB, Sevier got 
off the engine where he wa« riding on the fireaan's or east eide of 
the train shortly before the train stalled, walked back to see what 
was wrong and after the train stopped decided to out it between the 
36th and 37th cars. 

The evidence tends to show he elosed the angle oooke on the 
2 care, uncoupled the air hose, then crossed over to the engineer's 
or west side of the train, eignalled the engineer to back up so he 
eould pull the pin and thus cut the train at that point. The engineer 
backed up, as he testified, from 20 to 60 feet when the front section 
of the train ran into the rear section. The engineer further testi- 
fied that from the time he received the signal he did not again see 
the signal lantern which ijevier had. The train crew consisting of the 
engineer, fireman, conductor and the rear br&kesan, went along the 



deox^ 



^0 THUG" -■-■'- ^tA| |( ^taattti^m^ \. > 






.JAIKT V3St« A f Mrr»^e 9l|riirTT ,«A«3:M ,<l BIOHAHO 

5a I .A.I 60 8 I ...xx^,* ^" "-rxco , .x«c^.o 

.TFHOD 5ST 'Ko :Mjiv:j<iq sk* osrFifVTT-^n ■■o?Mor)'o 3irTT--Tn. .m 
"Vtq till is&fltf tttikba9t9ll!< *%nlan^ tlB9 tA»u9^ tti9fli«lH 

bB» bialyiKWM aavr XaZit w»fl A ,000,«X|; "xol lovat a»rti;fni«Xq at ttfm 

ij^ J&9>i;oIqn9 8AW laivaC ... 7i^>r«riA la£l» aftaoloaib !no9%i •ifft 

to ^ffsln 9d3 no jlooXo'o OX Jba» 9 assv^off Jbim AMnslUi^tf « a« ifdAAiialtJ^ 

lie ,8iJB0 d€ ^o £fli^aicao« atgni *A^l9iit hnuotSiiiuot ttt «VS6X ,XS \»1H 

M qif -^lo^ aXitfv .baXXA^a ,nAaftj[a'X(i( b»9d 9a b^xolqm^ a«w naXrae itolrfv 

'0^ i9iV9£ .alonllXI ««&srS lo dtion saXlfl S 9»ocf« Xiiil qaata t^tSian. 

lo ai^ls i^ajsa no a'aAnrxXl ad^ ae ^ttlt a«w tjcf fsaibr dnl^nne ed3 llo 

iTfidw oae o^T iiiaad ^aiXj&w «.&aXX«#a ni£'%;r sff} e'xot»<f xlfiadn nlAiS oAt 

9M3 naawlfad tl tun o>S Aal^ieaJb bftqqiot* eilO'iS ^riJ tatla &nji ;|aovv a«if 

.»%«# ii^s*s &fl« £t#as 

..ij ao iialoeo «XaiO« 9dt SasoX© ©i — . c* aiifisJ aoiiaAXr^ aifT 

a'laenX^flA ^dt e^ t»To i&»aa<no fxaifir ,«ao£i iIa BttS fioXqtfoem/ .s-zao S 

exi o« qu tlOac/ oS t^imi^^ 9Si$ b«XXftiisXa ^alAt^ fttlt lo aJ&ia tsaw lO 

le^Rlfiafk sifT .^nioq tad} ;ra atani 9dS tuo auiiS jbna niq. tuiS XXtfq 6X«oo 

floXJ'aoB tnot% ^ta nai^ ^'aal Od oiif OS iSEto<x1: «£eili^a«;f ed »a ,qu Jbe:tl0Acr 

-i?sa;r imiliul laaalafltt •'(IT ,aolio»9i lAa^ axi;^ oiffii oa's at^nS uii lo 

»a« flljasa ton btb dxf Xfifl^Xa axit £avi«9<rc «><( 9mX;^ adiT eto^l 9adi J^ail 

ad^ lo aAl;r8iaisoo waao rtlA%r «rfr .£ai1 aalvs^ tSolAa sn*tiuU XAn^la edliT 

Aff:* ■QKfitB «n»ur M«»ArfMMf «rK.am aH:» haA TOI^flJffcAaA .JUUMTXil .rCOallilUla 



train to fteeertAln what had happened and found that s^vler was 
onifflhed and held between the touapers of the 36th and 37th cars. He 
was instantly killed. Shortly afterward the front section of the train 
was taken south over the hill to a switch track where it was plaeed; 
the engine was then brought baolte and the eeoond eeetion ^'ag likewise 
taken south over the hill, and after the two seetione were connected, 
^s» train proceeded. 

The evidence further tisowe that when the angle coeke were 
eloeed, fee air brakes with whieh the train was equipped, were out of 
ttse on the rear eectlon but the engineer had control of t^e forward 
eeetion; that after the air hoee is uncoupled between the two cars 
and the angle cocks opened, this would set the brakes. 

Tim teetlsony of the conductor and the rear brakeman ie to 
the effect that after the train stalled and apparently after the out 
waa made, the rear section started back north or down the hill and 
then rather suddenly cam9 to a itop as though the brakes were set. 

At the close of all the evidence defendant moved for a 
directed verdict, which motion the court reserved. Thereupon the 
▼erdlct was returned April 14, 1939, In plaintiff's favor. April 19, 
before Judgment was entered, defendant filed a written motion for 
Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, July 11, the court denied the 
Botlon and entered Judgment on the verdict in plaintiff's favor for 
115,000, Three days later, defendant filed a written action for a 
new trial specifying a number of grounds, Hoveraber 2, the motion was 
allowed and a new trial awirded. Counsel say the trial Judge rendered 
no opinion and gave no reasons for awarding the new trial. 

It is the theory of defendant that Bevier met his death 
solely on account of hie own negligence that after he closed tbe 
angle eooka on the two cars and uncoupled the air hose he neglected to 
open the angle cock on the rear section of the train before making the 
eutj that after he pulled the pin to make the out (there being no 
brakes on the rear section of the train). It started down hill and 



9H ,t%»o dtS'Z bOM di»& 0dt lo •nftqcumf ta A*«wtW JMwf hum bwdMuto 

Kl^i^t 9dt lo meJttoe^ $ain% 9£if b%mtn9i\M xltt^9i^ •Jk»Xlli( xttOMfmal a«v 

.•OAlq sAv ti •n«»Aw Ji««ntf iio^Tiva a oif lUti %dt tdfto situo% /i«3U^ •«« 

««iuf9;iUi a«H noii*<9«« 6aos«« Mi^ 5nA Jf9«d itiguv^ aedi bat •iriyi^ fti£t 

^h»i9t»anco •tev 9j(«/^99a ov^ Aiit id^ta Jto« ,IJUt£f MUf <x«Te dtitc* a«iUt 

M«vtol dxi^ lo lotifdod £u»i£ i9ftaiyi» Mfif $P<i aotto^t tA9i fulS no Mir 

.«t«jUn(f ttfiir 399 bltiofw til£t ,ft«ii*qo »](••» •tans •d;}' Jbiu 

09 a Z AAn^^Lrscf im9i mI^ iSii« lo^sv&no* •/ft \o Xtthmti99t 9tft 

SU6 9Ai n^tXia xlia9'ifiqqm bn& b^llui^ ttttnt •/& nsd^lji ikitt t09t\9 9di 

btm ILIA tuit flWQft 10 tltton ioAcf AetiBla aotf999 t««rr mCI ^^i^Aa tflW 

,399 9rt«w ••sU'xtf 9^^ Hlgjroij? ma <2otA 4 of saso xi<i«bX>0t I9iit«^ flM& 

A •sol 6»vo« tnA&nAlo6 eonftMre »i(3' XJtA to wBold ad^T ;rA 

eiltf Roqufi'inifi »b9ir^999i ^xcrvo «^ neitfofl xlolifv ,9oiMAr bA^oertlf 

. i Ili:qA .lOTAl s'lliiTn/Alq ni ,tS<}X «^X Xi'si^ ^AAiitif drt •«« i^aXMat 

tol iiol;ro» nA^fi^nr a 6aX11 taBJba9t9b ^b9rL9tn9 aav tnAflr^ot A'xolACf 

^ii$ b9ln9b ituoo 9di ,XI xXnt .^aIJ^av aii^r ;ginXAflA;f8i&Xvtoii tffeoa&ul 

<tol •xovsi A'llitfilAXq fli S'oXMdV 9tiS tto 3a9n^u\, b^i9in9 bts a Bottom 

A ^ol RttlSosa aoiSttyi a b9lt1 iRAbtt^Xmb ^fSAl uxtb •A'tdT ,000,9l| 

AMU aottoa 9tii «C lAtfatAYOH .abnu&vcS) to lodmua a Bisix;lioA<{« lAlrt -woa 

b9'X9brtfi1 »3.&»t XAltlT Alft XAA XABJSJUeO .£«M«WA lAttt VAfl « ARA J^AVOXXS 
..iAtlt WAn All} 3fli£T£WA tol AROAAAI Ofl WA^ btlA OOifllqC All 

iii»9.b aid i9m i^Xta^ 3a A9 tttAba9t9b lo fxOArif Aff^ ai #X 

&iiS £98oIo Ad 'X9f^A iAdi 9oa9%iL^ott ttHO Aifl lo l^nuooAA no ^XaXoa 

ot bBtooligoa 9si ARAif rrlA 9di bolqu^oav btiA enuBA evt sdt ao aiCeoo aX^ha 

9dii :iiniyiAm A'tol^tf nlAtf odt lo floi^AAa •saa^ Adf ao itoAA AXsns A^fif oa^ 

on ;;I?>(I siad*) Jwa Arf* ajCaat ot tUq »ds bolluq, od ia*1a *Ad» ;*tfO 

<v^.. liiu Hwo£> j&A^-wsJA Jl .(niiwJ AriJ lo nolJooa oftAi »rf;r no atiAitd 



i^cn Sevier saw this he huwied in between the two cars to open the 
angle cook on the south end of the south car of the north section of 
the train and thus get the "orokes; that while he was in the aet of 
during this the engineer eontinued to back the other section of the 
train and when Sevier opened the angle cock, the north section stopped 
and he was crushed and killed. 

On the other side, the position of counsel for plaintiff is 
"that there was eubetantial evidence for the jury, first, &b to 
whether the engineer vae negligent in the manner in vhloh he backed 
the train *** without any warning or acknowledging signal for as much 
as &) feet without any application of the automatic brakes *** so that 
a coupling pin could be lifted not more than 36 cars back * - that the 
engineer continued backing "after he saw the light which he said he 
saw, and aesuaed was Sevier's lantern, disappear froia view.** That the 
evidence shows the angle cook on the rear snd of the 36th ear waa 
elosed so that the engineer had complete control of the 36 cars and 
tbat he could have stopped the 36 ©are in 5>-l/2 seconds. 

Counsel for plaintiff say that the trial Judge, in awarding 
the new trial, adopted defendant's position holding '•that as a matter 
of law no recovery could be had upon any view that eould be taken of 
the evidenoe. • We cannot concur in this statement in viev of the fact 
that the trial judge rendered no opinion when he awarded the new 
trial because such action would be directly contrary to the order 
theretofore entered hy him in overniling defendant 's motloa for judg- 
ment notwithstanding the verdict. 

Plaintiff B position is that there v/ere no procedural errors; 
that taae question of liability was properly submitted to the jury who 
returned a verdict In plaintiff's favor, and that this court should 
reverse the order awarding the new trial and enter Jufigment on the 
verdict. 

The controlling question In this case is whether the en- 
gineer was guilty of negligence which, in ^ole or in part, brought 



3d7 flMie p^ •■MS ewt «i^ 0«viit«ll «i ^iiviwi ti BisU ««« 'x*Xt««^ amIv 

J!}9q.lo^e nolS»i« ^non «£f^ 42io«o 9Xie« cdi A«ii»qo t«xv«^ Jl«c^:«. ibiiA iiJL«<t# 
.■ t WlinlMlq, iq\ l99nuoo lo noltlttoq. nAt ^^le t^tHo ut$ nO 

ifoiia tuA not X«ix«X» 3ni{i&<9Xwe;u((Uk me ^^nltnMm tAA >«««b^iw *** aX««^ wH 

3ii;r iMiS •» " XoA^ a'Ufts d€ rt^itl »nOH iToii 6oJtXX ftcf JbXtfoo niq 3|fiXXq;voo a 

jii Mjm Ad iieicii# td«iX 9ii.i «;«• (»<l «x«:f'L»'' Dnl3lo«d A«vnX9noo tsanXsir* 

«iri;r areriT ' .«roXv taant lA^qqueXb ,fnf^nAX 8W«X7«(:: t«M bmau»f Jftfi» ^WM 

a»v wao titbZ 9Ai to ha^ im9% hiS9 no Aoq9 •l8«t» iMH uwetin fton«J&Xv« 

hsu» tieo l»S 9Hs lo X<rs#jioo ecToXci^oa 6«xi fnnt%ntt mdt ttt£t oti X>m«Xo 

.ci>no&9e ^\l'-'^ «i rvMi M ttfft A*«q«i^« •VAd M0OO ad tAdt 

i9ii^m a vt»,ijuit^ BnXJbXod nolilBC\ s'faA&fie'l«A i>«^q«i>A ,Xa1«x/ w«(i a4t 

lo «ioi(8; 9<i lbXi<oo iAiiJ v»Xr Xfls noqu J^d od Muoo ^•3:9voo«a on ir«I !• 

;r9«'t 9fi^ lo yf«lv fil Ifiesm^AjT* aXri^ Ai ^uionoo i(Ma»o e^ * .^dflftftive ttiHf 

X9i>io ftftr o4 ViAiisioo \£t&tr^t «Gf J^Xuow ooX^ToA il«iu8 »auAOdtf XaXisT 
-i|£>tft "JfO"* flOXifojir a' tRjUijnttn£,_ ^^Jilirvxmo <iX «Xii \(S J&«««>*n» ©TcotiJ^feida* 

,;roXM^T M(^ :gi£ilbaat9diJt\noa in^ta 
isioit© Xa-^uiJjwwrtq oyR •a«nr »rxoriJ 3^«ri* aX nel^ itaoq a'ltXtAXAXSi 

bXiforia ar£U»o •103 ?*ri^ baa ,*j©vj81 t*1rtX3^nl*Xq aX iolAtw a b^tnttttn 
ftdif flo *n»c^fti/t T»afn» 6n« Xj&Xt:* V9fi ail* ^flX&'jaw* "xeJi^xo •«£* a»«z«v«^ 

'^ns •dif ladJ-cdv aX ea«o aXti? nX «ioX^i39crp sixXXXoitnoo »}iT 
*i*juoittf .t-xaq nX to eXorfw nX .xlsiffw aMaBXlsM ^o tillirg •tM «X9«als 



-4« 

•laeat Sevler'e fatal Injuries, So far ae the evldenee dleeloees, 
tl3i«r« were no defects In any ffieohails® of the train, At plaintiff** 
request, the Jury w€i*e inetrtictefi that if they believed from a 
preponderance of the evidence, defendant was negligent and tliat Sevier 
was Icllled aB a result "In whole or In psrt froa sueli negligence* then 
they should find for plaintiff, And in other Instruetione aubatltted 
by plaintiff, the Jury were told that If they believed from a pre- 
ponderance of the evidence that the engineer, in the exercise of 
ordinary care, for the safety of the deceased, could have prevented 
the accident, their verdict should be for plaintiff. In instructions 
tendered \sj defendant, the Jury were told that plaintiff alleged the 
train was equipped with defective air brakes yet there vas no evidence 
to support thlB allegation and the Jury should not consider that 
question in arriving at their verdict. That the plaintiff could not 
recover If they found from a preponderance of the evidence that the 
sole cause of Sevier's death vas occasioned by hie own act, we think 
these instructions properly presented the vital question to the Jury, 
defendant contends thet the court erred in refusing to give 
three instructions requested by it. By one of these Instruotions it 
VAB sought to tell the Jury thez^ vas no evidence legally tending to 
prove that after the train stalled it "parted" or '•broke in two" and 
that they "must not consider anything that has been said during the 
trial of the case on that subject in considering or arriving at your 
verdict. In other words 'ttie train parted* matter, contention or 
subject is out of the case and you will give it no consideration idaat- 

ever, " We think this instruction was properly refused. There is con- 
siderable argument in the briefs ae to whether the signal given by 
Sevier to the engineer was a "back-up'' signal described &e a "circle 
at arm's length" vhlch signal plaintiff contends under one of de- 
fendant's rules which was in evidence, was that the train had parted 
and was not a signal to back-up, There was no evidence ^at the 
"train parted" but that it was "cut" by Sevier in uncoupling it be- 



a»x!^ "90i!8Si-^''^B»<^ jfou» HFoilt ftAq flii to «r«x^r ni* tlirart « «a J^alliM ««v 

-mq a ffitnl ibsvatlW t»^ ^^ ^a/{^ hXef »t9v x%ul 9itt tIrlitnXAiq xxi 
lo oaiotox* »<^ til «i9»flt38«i »rf^ lAiif t9m>.&2T« aif^ )6 •oiuisJIiioq 

sftr ft? fiisf^ fifo# yi#w ttffl «rf3 ,*a*A«*t«» tid" >eit«&«*^ 

•on»l - t<f «vl* «TJlft»«1'«ft iftjhr B«q(fiiii>» taw fitl«n^ 

$»dS litblnnott ifoii J!>Iifor(s ttift •^ ^a* ooi^JiltXIJi slitf ^'tetitqiw ^ 

ton ItXuoG imrnlalq wf* tatTT .*o16i»y liwJ* f« vtlvl'WA nt neirtsvp 

a[£ii/f;f 9^ ttQA nwo six! x<f &«iiol«j&ooo e«w £&««& «*rt«iir»a %o «atf«» olos 
•tiot Sri* o* RoiinBup lAitr id* *«*rt»tMq ^XtwrMtqr »ii«i*otn:* »nl ♦••*» 

^/ anoi^oxn^sni easxfr to «flo tS «*1 T<f hvtn*vpn% ftflel9»tirr*sfl± •mil* 

oJ 3iil6n»* xXla^^X eonefiir* cm taw fttliii* f^ciit «il* XleJ o* <r£isuo« ««w 

6xu» ♦'owJ fli aiertcf* no *b«i*uiq* St Jb«iIIa*a hIai* ^At la^ta *AiC» *Ti«q 

»d* "galtttb hlav nn^d tail taitt gnirf^tBa •nol^iaflod *o^^ **»&«* Xsui^ 9B&S 

tyc Uinftiaiitfo «1 *09t<^w« *irf* «o «aa9 erfJ lo SAini 

10 aoi»n9*fioo ^laiJaa •A»*ia<j nlant •/if* tlWo'* rtsrf^o nl .*©XJH»v 

-ysrfw noltatoAlsaeo oii *i ^rtst lltv w$x &«* »««© »rf*^ "io ^^'O s-t ?9*ttfwa 

aXotio* a a* J»»rfJ:to»aJ& ttn-^lo *^qu^i9e4* a »aw t!<>«ttl3|«a Mf* ©* nt«lT«e 

-*S lo oflo i»Bir» tfcfT«#fioo W*ffJf«Xq Xa«Si« rfalsbf "^KTiaaX a •»*» *» 

Se^iaq feaxi nljin* «ri* Jjarf* sirw ,esi««J&iT« nl aaw Hottbg aaXaiE a'^aaiteal 

9ff* *ai» sonsJUv* en taw ene*? ,<|ir-i£»j»«r o* Xaaijia « *•« «*w Ana 

-«cr ?1 snlXquoenif h1 laivai^ ^d *#«o* 8«* ^i *a^jJ jfffd •^••'laq ffiai*" 



-&- 

t'Sfften the 36th and 37th cars. ^e think the instruction might also tend 
to eonfuee. 

The next instruction which defendant contends w&e improperly 
refused, sou^t to Imv© the jury "instructed that a» a matter of lav; the 
failure of th<p engineer to respond, by blowing hl« whistle, to the 
back-up signal refen?ed to in the testimony of the engineer, was not 
and oould not be a proximate ©awse^of Gevler's injury and death and 
therefore tlw Jury were not @uthori?,ed to base their verdict in favor 
of plaintiff upon the claimed failure of the engineer to whistle after 
getting the baci^-up signal. Me think this Inetruetion was properly 
refused. The <|u®stion was for the jury to decide whether aevler had 
given the engineer a back-up signal and whether the engineer's failure 
to respond by blovini^ his ^letle caused, in part at least, the fatal 
aoeldent, The instruction would eliminate the evidence tending to 
show the engineer did not see any signal* 

By the third refused instruction, defendant sought to have 
the Jury told that even though they found defendant was negligent, yet 
If they also found Sevier wae negligent and that except for hie negli- 
gence he would not have been killed, their verdict should be for de- 
fendant. The Jury were told in other instructions that plaintiff 
could not recover if they found that Sevier wae killed solely ae a 
result of his own negligence. This \-&s sufficient. 

There was evidence to the effect that no signal was given to 
the engineer to back up because Sevier was not in a po tuition where he 
could give such signal on account of the curve in the track, ti^ees and 
other obstructions. 

There is considerable discussion in the briefs ae to °Af ther 
certain rules of the railroad company were applicable to the facts In 
the case and therefore admissible in evidence, we think it would serve 
no purpose to discuss titiese contentions in detail sXnee we have 
reached the conclusion that we would not be warranted in dl«trubing the 
order of the court awarding a new trial. On a retrial of the case w© 
think counsel would have n© trouble in vlev of the facts disclosed by 



bm»t e*X« 3d^ln Roliouiinttl 9Cit intdt «W' .«nubo AiVZ bOM AtbZ tit a»9^t 

&ds of ^9tt»ld>ll %tA uaJt^old xd ,6aoqarx of tesnisfl* 9dt lo ^tullMt 

' st^ri ?ew ^laMiiBn* »rtt to ^nomi^ss^ sxf} cl of h»ii9'\9n Lurglt qu^i^tut 

hn& dtattb hoM x^tJtftfli ^ SniVA^ ^e "»«»£,'> 9i&alxc*tvi » m' ;fo(t AX0OO Acut 

•if? lo ^liiXlAl i!>»sJiJkXo »xff noqir YittBtAlq ^o 
>/;.5r»'io'.f!;i s.'^i.- iiox.j-'i.i^ri^nl sirff itoi<if tW .Xafl^lB qxr-lojuf «rff jnlffts 

XAfiii*t «cft ,f«fic>r }a StMq ttt ,l>»»tf«o •ifiiliiir slri aaltroXcf ^(^ finoqaoi of 
of iE|nll>flof oOflti^iTe 9iif ^fiiaiaiXa i^Xvoir iioXfe<nf«aX •dX ,ta9bi90A 

• X«rr3|it x^iA *•* fofl £i^ losoi^no oiif woifs 

err,.; „. _..^OQ :fc;Afin*i»Tt«A ,iioif amf »fll ftoadrx iHXrff wrif tfi 

$?>% tfiTTA^iX^on SAW fiTA^nstoft &etfol x«Kf d^vodf ««▼« f^iif l>Xof \iiJl •di 

•ll3»n aij^ to) fq«9Xft f «flf 6a« ffiOBXXson «>«w t*tr<»x baaot oaXA >(0£lf li 

^9b t^ •<f l>Xiferf8 folMoT ilwSi ^bnlllt jio9<f orjtxi foil bluow oil ooiios 

ItlfciiAXq fAdf anoifot/nfAiil i:«dfo al JbXo7 »'xo«« xvtit a^*^ .ffl&&nol 

s tA t^oXoa J!>eXXiar »Aif •zolvo^ f^>f!f &n&o) xsrif ii ntovooot fon bluoo 

.ffloXoillcSR ftA .aocA^XXsoa Awe alxf lo fXva«)x 

of n97jL>: asXs ofi fadt fO(»tl» edf of «dff«J&iT# ajnir na£lT 

»£{ 9<t*i^ nelf lao<s m nl fon tiw iioiToa «aiMOe<r qo jImmC •# ^xft^ni^ri^ @df 

<ts a»»if «;^!Mnf odf iU vrvto odt to fii&ooe^s no XAfl»ia ifoira aria l^Xxfoo 

• SAoitdjrifatfo "xorlfo 

^axSfis/fsie Of »« iisi-xtf «/ilf Hi rtOliwroftili •Xtfsntsftiawoo ai n«ffT 

ai afOiit •d[f of 9ldlAoiI<3<i» ottw t<^^B^^ ^^otXiAi oiif le aeXin filafnoe 

«Tt«a SXifow f i atiid , onoMto ni ^XcTiaaisftA <rco1:on»d[f bMM oaao ofif 

'^v&t( <ir 9onX9 Xiafai!) al anelfRfSfnoo ooofl^ osjvoaJLb of eaoqt«q on 

©rff ^aldiniulb al ftefnavww ed foa J&Xneir »w f*i» aolavXoflOO ailf l^»rfo«9t 

9v «»ao odf to iMliim m aO ,LUif yna k snl&VMS fnvoo •dS lo lofeto 

vd i>»aoiaalJS efOA^ arif to woXv ni ©Xrfifcnf ©a oYOd *Xwow Xoant»o inliif 



th« evidence, la offering eay rail's^ tAioh are not appiiaable, 

felwith«p this engineer was guilty of aaj asgllgenoa isn b®.ciclng 
tbe tJ»&ia frote SO to SO t&^Xt as tlie eaglnsar testified, la regpoaaa 
to 3evl©r^e signal no &s to penait ^^evlar to oyt tJie t;3:'alii, Oi* wh^toftr 
to er«&te tiify neeeasary slack it wfis only neoe@s&ry to baek the train 
ft fev feet, i*^© do not ■p&fts epon. But la view of tho eatl2*« s'eeai^ w© 
are of opinion we voald not b« warranted in holding th® trl&l ju%e 
clearly abused the dlseretlon whleb th« Isw reposed in hia in swarding 
a new trial, ^s^ey r, phloago Motor Cg&oh Oo . , 2QQ 111. App. 40gj 
fone V. HaJLsey. ataart 4 Co .. 2Q6 111. Apr. 169? C-oueh v. So. ^. Op. . 
£94 111. App. 490. 

The order of tB« Superior court of Coolt eeuntjr ai^ardlBg a 
aew tri&X Is afflraed^ 

Matolt^ett, P.J., &nd >ic Surely, J., ooneur. 



-a- 

,fiM»t)lli;,^M ton «rxa dotOe e«Xcn tiu iinii9l:lo Al ,MUI«Alir» 0di 
9aA«<ic9i {ii 4^ •« «#9i»t 06 o7 OS S'Otl tilAii 9dt 

i 

•^i.-C lAla^ n^ jtoJU^ixul ml S^^StiAnn&M ^ ton blu«^ vw aelalqo to mA 

jSCf' .q<iA .III SSS . . eP <*.&AQJ %<;i^y' o y^- ■ ^^^r^tt .ijili* wwi « 

.0'-' .^, >pg • _ JWX .o«A .III »££ . . ^: t i^tifS .T»tX»^ .IT <?g9T 

.0« .cp?A .III ^es 



.tKOft^^ 





Published in Abstract 



Stuart E. Pierson, Administrator de bonis non with 
^VO^mA^inexed of the Estate of David |Meade 

vJ'ishback, d^eased, Plaintiff Appfel- 
'•'^^''"'^^nt v.fLouiseu lUshb^ck, et/ \ 

y., Dfefendants.^Appellees/ ^^ 

Gen. No. 9219. '^^ ^-^" ^" 

ilE. Presiding Justice Riess delivered the opinion 
of the Court. 

The above cause comes to this Court upon a second 
appeal, from a decree of the County Court of Greene 
Countv, Illinois. 

The original petition filed by Stuart E. Pierson, Ad- 
ministrator de bonis non with Will annexed of the 
Estate of David Meade Fishback, deceased, prayed 
for an order of court to sell all real estate of which 
said deceased died seized and possessed except certain 
homestead premises then occupied by Louise Fishback, 
mdow of said deceased, for the purpose of paying- 
debts and claims allowed or chargeable against said 
estate. A decree for sale of the real estate was en- 
tered, from which an appeal was taken to this Court, 
wherein the cause was duly heard and the decree of the 
lower court was reversed and set aside and the cause 
remanded to the County Court "for such other and 
further proceedings as to law and justice shall apper- 
tain". No specific directions were given in that opin- 
ion concerning the form of order to be entered by the 
lower court. The case is reported in abstract form as 
Pierson v. Fishbacl-, 299 111. App. 627, 20 N. E. (2d) 
329, in which opinion a full statement of the facts and 
issues arising in the former trial are set forth and 
need not be repeated in this opinion. 

Upon filing the mandate of this Court in the court 
below, the plaintiff petitioner prayed leave to file an 
amended and supplemental petition for the purpose of 
retrjdng said cause. Upon the former appeal, it was 
held under the facts then in the record that petitioner's 
right to sell the premises would be barred by laches. 
The amended claim contains certain additional allega- 
tions seeking to justify the lapse of time before filing 
the petition and to make proof of additional facts 



Page 2 Geii. No. 9219 

thereunder, and the supplemental petition set forth 
the conveyance of the premises sought to be sold m 
said proceeding by said Louise Fishback to David 
Donald Fishback, son of said deceased, and Jack Mc- 
Donald and Gilbert K. Hutchens, including in addition 
to a 310 acre farm, a homestead property consisting of 
certain lots and dwelling house in the City of Carroll- 
ton, Illinois, which conveyances contained release and 
■waiver of all homestead rights of Louise Fishback in 
the latter premises. 

The Trial Court denied the appellant's motion for 
leave to file an amended and supplemental petition for 
sale of all the real estate except said homestead prem- 
ises and found that the prayer of the petitioner should 
he denied as to sale of all real estate other than said 
homestead as being barred by laches; the entry of 
which orders were assigned as error by appellant 
herein. 

In our former opinion reversing and remanding the 
cause, we held in substance that under the facts set 
forth in the record, the appellant should have been per- 
mitted to retile her claim against the estate, to assert 
her rights to rents and profits, and upon allowance of 
her claim, be permitted to prorate ^\^th other sixth 
class creditors. 

The lower court erred in demang the appellant's 
right to file an amended and supplemental claim alleg- 
ing additional facts and .joining the grantees named in 
the deeds and creditors as additional defendants, to be 
followed by a rehearing upon the merits. 

The cause is therefore reversed and remanded with 
directions to the Trial Court to set aside its decree of 
Augaist 4, 1939, and to permit the filing by the appel- 
lant of an amended and supplemental complaint and 
joining additional parties. 

Reversed and Remanded wifli Directions. 

14 (A-19598— 14) 



>%^.J^-'yM-2jo ' 



J-L> 



Published in Abstract 




Lottie Biehl, et al., Plain^ff-Appellees, v. Tlie H. N". 

Schuyler State Bailt^ of P&na, Illmpis, ;&ef endant- 

App§llee§), First Presby^rian C^^rch If Pana, IDi- 

nois, Lq|iisa Clarke, A|tielia G#anda,/|t al., De- 

fend^&t-Appellants. ibscar Nelson, Aui|itor of 

.-^'ublic Accounts, Jex Rel., |PlajAtiflf-AWl- 

The H. 1$. Schuyler State Bank of 
f 
Pam,, niinois/Defendant-Appellees, In- 

rvening Petition of Louisa Clarke, 

Amelia Granda and The First 

Presbyterian Church of Pana, 

Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellants. 

Gen. No. 9206 

S[r. Justice Fulton delivered the opinion of the 
Court. 

This is an appeal from two decrees rendered by the 
Circuit Court of Christian County in two cases which 
Avere consolidated by stipulation for the purposes of 
this appeal, and by agreement of the parties, tried and 
submitted on one record. 

The H. N. Schuyler State Bank of Pana, Illinois, 
closed its doors on Febman^ 6, 1930. A suit was tiled 
in the Circuit Court of Christian County by the State 
Auditor of Public Accounts for the purpose of liqui- 
dating- the affairs of the bank, and on April 21, 1930, 
one A. W. Frankenfeld was appointed Receiver. This 
cause bore the general number 11178. On May 13, 
1930, the Plaintitf-Appellees, being depositors and 
creditors of the bank, filed a representative stockhold- 
ers liability suit, seeking to recover assessments on the 
bank stock of said institution. This suit was numbered 
11180. 

The controversies in the case arise over the admin- 
istration of a trust and the handling of the estate of one 
Kate A. Comstock. She was the owner of 80 shares 
of stock in The H. N. Schuyler State Bank from 1907 
up until the date of her death in 1923. The Bank was 
engaged in the general banking business but was not 



Page 2 Gen. No. 9206 

antliorized to take and execute trusts. On January 23, 
1922, Mrs. Comstock made and executed a Trust AgTee- 
ment concerning all of her property, wherein and 
whereby, she appointed the said Bank as Trustee to 
liandle and dispose of her entire estate. In the tirst 
clause of the instriiment she instmcted the Trustee 
1o convert the 80 shares of hank stock into money to be 
added to her cash balance on deposit in said bank, to 
be used in the pa^anent of her debts and a large number 
of bequests, aggregating over twenty thousand dollars. 
The trust instrument directed that many of said be- 
quests be paid within one year after her decease. Others 
were to be paid in pa\Tnents running from five to 
twenty years and others when children became of age. 

To the Appellant, The First Presbyterian Church of 
Pana, Illinois, was liequeathed the sum of $5,000.00, to 
be held by the Trustee for a period of twenty years, 
and only the income paid to the church annually during 
that time. After the expiration of the twenty year 
period the principal was to be paid to the church as 
needed. To the Appellants, Louisa Clarke and Amelia 
Granda, was given the sum of $2,000.00 each to be paid 
in installments during a five year period after the 
death of Mrs. Comstock. 

At the death of Mrs. Comstock all of her property 
was in the hands of the bank. Subsequent to the date 
of her death, the expenses of her last illness were paid 
and during the year 1925, a number of the gifts or be- 
quests mentioned in the Ti'ust Agreement were paid 
by the Bank. The Bank stock was never converted 
into cash and in March, 1926, it was transferred to the 
four residuary beneficiaries in kind, each taking 20 
shares. 

At date of death the checking account for Mrs. Com- 
stock amounted to $:),tX)0.00. The account was carried 
on after her death, and the business of the Estate 
handled by the Bank. When the Bank closed, the 
Receiver took possession of the trust property. 

In April, 1933, A. W. Frankenfeld resigned as Re- 
ceiver of the Bank and Nora Molz was appointed Suc- 
cessor Receiver. 

In the Stockholders liability suit, the Appellants 
were not made parties in the original complaint, but 
in September 1934, the Appellees filed an amendment 
to the complaint making the Appellants and Nora 
Molz, as Receiver of The H. N. Schuyler State Bank, 
additional parties defendant for the purpose of re- 
covering the liabilitv on stock owned bv Kate A. Com- 



Page 3 Gen. No. 9206 

stock during her lifetime and afterwards until said 
stock was transferred on the records of the bank on 
March 29, 1926. By the Amendment, the Appellees 
claimed a first lien on all of the assets of the said Kate 
A. Comstock coming into the hands of the bank. It 
further asked tliat all of said assets of the trust be 
applied on the liability due to the Creditors of said 
bank and in case of a deficienc^^ after the application 
of said assets that the Appellees recover from Appel- 
lants to the extent that each had received assets from 
said trust. 

The same complaint was amended on sevei'al other 
occasions, the last one lieing filed on March 14, 1938. 
In April, 1935, the Appellants filed an answer to the 
complaint as then amended. The answer alleged that 
the Bank wrongfully accepted the trust and that Nora 
Molz, as Eeceiver, took possession of the trust pro- 
perty without qualifying as Trustee. It also averred 
that Nora Molz was not authorized to take or admin- 
ister said trust ; that the cause of action did not accrue 
to the Appellees at any time within five years before 
the commencement of the suit, and that said Trustee 
wrongfully took and converted the trust funds. On 
July 27, 1936, the Appellants, by leave of Court, filed 
a cross-complaint charging the same matters set forth 
in their answer. On July 27, 1936, the Appellants 
filed a petition in the liquidation suit asking for the 
lemoval of the said bank and Nora ]\Iolz, Receiver as 
Trustees of the said Trust Estate. The petition 
charged that the Receiver had been cooperating witli 
Ihe Creditors of the Bank to dissipate the trust funds 
which the said Nora Molz was holding for the benefit 
of the petitioners. 

In May, 1935, Nora Molz, Receiver, answered the 
amended complaint in the Stock liability suit, and 
later an amended answer admitting the acceptance of 
the trust by the bank, setting forth certain acts of the 
said bank as said trustee, and admitting that she had in 
her hands, as Receiver of said Bank, the sum of 
$7,425.00, belonging to said Trust. 

Voluminous motions and amendments were filed dur- 
ing the progress of the suits but the original com- 
plaints, as amended, the cross-complaint and the inter- 
vening petition were all answered and the case at 
issue at the time of the hearing before the Court. 

The proofs, in addition to those already stated and 
those disclosed hj the pleadings, show that after the 
deatli of Mrs. Comstock in 1923, her account was car- 



Page 4 Geii. Xo. 9206 

riecl on by the bank nntil the time of closing its doors 
in 1930, and thereafter liy the Receiver to the year 
1935. Beginning with July 1, 1925, $75.00 had been 
paid the Appellant, First Preslni^^erian Chnch of Pana, 
Illinois, by the bank semi-annnally until November 
23, 1928, when there was paid the church $150.00, and 
the same amount again paid to the Church on Decem- 
ber 28, 1929. 

After the bank was closed by the Auditor, the Ap- 
pellants filed general claims in the liquidation suit 
against the bank based on the said trust agreement, 
which claims were allowed in the amount of $5,000.00 
to the Church and $2,000.00 to Amelia Granda and 
liOuisa Clarke respectively. Afterwards on April 1, 
1931, the Receiver paid a general dividend of 121/.%. 
and paid to the First Presbyterian Church $625.00 as 
a dividend on its claim. He also paid the Appellants 
Amelia Granda $250.00 and Louisa Clarke $250.00. On 
January 15, 1934, a second dividend of 5"^! was paid 
to all general creditors and at that time there was paid 
to the Church $250.00, Amelia Granda $100.00 and 
Louisa Clarke $100.00. A little later, the Trustees 
of the First Presbyterian Church filed a petition in 
suit No. 11178, asking that their claim against said 
bank be reconsidered and re-allowed as a preferred 
claim, and on May 21, 1934, a decree was entered in 
said cause allowing the claim of the Church in the sum 
of $4,125.00, being the amount of $5,000.00, less the 
dividend pajnnents of $875.00, as entitled to a prefei'- 
ence. In the same manner in July 1935, the claims of 
Amelia Granda and Louisa Clarke were allowed as 
preferred claims in the amount of $1,650.00 each, 
being the sum of $2,000.00 in each ease, less the divi- 
dend pa^Tnents of $350.00, to each claimant. The basis 
of the claims for preference was that the bank had pre- 
viously acted during its period of solvency as a Trus- 
tee ex maleficio of the Comstock Trust. Immediately 
thereafter, Nora Molz, as Receiver of the bank, set up 
as a reserve the sum of $7,425.00, being the aggregate 
of the said three preferred claims. 

In cause No. 11178, being the liquidation suit, the 
Court dismissed the intervening petition of Appellants 
on the ground that as claimants the petitioners had 
previously gone into the Circuit Court and had, at a 
former term of Court, their claims determined to be 
preferred and judgment or decree taken accordingly. 
That as to any relief prayed, the intervenors had been 
o-uiltv of laches. 



Page 5 Gen. Xo. 9206 

In cause I1180, being the stockholders liability suit, 
the Court found that the Appellees recover the sum of 
$8,000.00 from the trust estate in manner, to-wit : That 
all monies in the hands of Nora ^lolz, as Receiver of 
The H. N. Schuyler State Bank, which were identifiable 
as comino- from the Estate or Trust fund of the late 
Kate A. Comstock, including all monies held by said 
bank at the time of its closing, and against which the 
preferred claims of Appellants were allowed and ini- 
])ressed, should to the amount of $8,000.00, be paid over 
by said Receiver, in due course of administration to 
the Receiver appointed in this cause. 

That the claim of the Appellees should be satisfied 
first, and prior to the claims of the Appellants under 
their preferred claims, and that any interest the saict 
Appellants might have to any funds in the hands of 
said Receiver, accruing from the Comstock Estate or 
Comstock Trust be subservient to the claim of said 
creditors. 

That Appellees were not entitled to recover from 
the Appellants any sums heretofore paid to them by 
the Bank or its Receiver. 

Decrees were entered in each case m accordance with 
the findings of the Court. Appellants have prosecuted 
an appeal to this Court seeking to reverse the judg- 
ments of the Circuit Court as set forth in said de- 
crees. The Appellees have filed a cross-appeal in suit 
11180, alleging that the Court erred in holding that 
Appellees, as complainants in said cause, were not 
entitled to recover from the Appellants, First Presby- 
terian Cliurch, Tjouisa Clarke and Amelia Granda, the 
respective sums of money paid them by the said bank 
or the Receivers thereof, prior to making them parties 
Defendant in said suit. 

It is first contended by Appellants that the Trustee 
should be required to pay the entii'e assessment against 
the stock held by Kate A. Comstock because of the mis- 
raauageraent of the Estate, and that all of the loss that 
accrued was due to the manner in which the Trustee 
handled the Trust Estate. They particularlv complain 
that the Trustee should have convei'ted the eighty 
shares of stock in The H. N. Schuvler State Bank into 
money for the purposes of distribution; that the Bank 
had been guiltj^ of devastation of the estate in that it 
accepted and attempted and did execute the provisions 
of the Trust AgT-eement, although they were not quali- 
fied under the banking laws of Illinois to either take or 
execute trusts; that the Bank was guilty of mis- 



Page 6 Gen. No. 9206 

management of the Trust in that it took the amount 
donated to Amelia Granda and Louisa Clarke and con- 
verted it to its o\\Ti use; that the Receiver of the Bank, 
acting as Trustee of the Comstock Estate, marshalled 
the assets of the Estate in a manner that was most ad- 
vantageous to it, the Receiver of the Bank, and that 
the bank did not proceed to loan the money due to the 
Eirst Presbyterian Church and the other individuals 
as directed by the Trust Agreement. 

It is conceded by all the parties that The H. N. 
Schuyler State Bank had no power or authority what- 
ever to accept and execute trusts, but the record in 
the case does not disclose any glaring evidence of mis- 
conduct in the handling of the funds of the Comstock 
estate. The fact that the eighty shares of bank stock 
were not converted into money but distributed in kind 
lo the four residuary beneficiaries was not harmful to 
the trust estate because the cash would have been paid 
out at the time of distribution, either to the residuary 
beneticiaries or for other purposes connected with the 
settlement of the estate. This distribution was made 
in 192(i before the closing of the bank. 

Because the bank was not qualified to accept or 
execute trusts does not atifect the rights of the parties, 
especially when there is no proof of any mishandling 
of the funds. The money and the property of the 
estate appears to have been paid or delivered to the 
proper persons who were entitled to the same, and it 
was not established by the evidence tliat there was a 
diversion or misappropriation of the funds. 

Just why the installments falling due to the Appel- 
lants Amelia Granda and Louisa Clarke on January 
1st of each vear after the death of Kate A. Comstock 
were not paid is not fully explained, but the Receiver 
in her answer states that she set aside a reserve suf- 
ficient to pay the legacies due to said Appellants and 
still has the full amount on hand, and is holding the 
same subiect to the orders and dictates of the Circuit 
Court of Christian Countv. 

I''^nder the trust a'i'reement H. N. Schuyler was given 
the sum of $1,000.00. Aftei' the closing of the bank a 
claim was filed and allowed for this amount. Tt was 
later set off by the Receiver against a note that 
Schujder owed the bank. A similar disposition was 
made of a bequest of $500.00 to James Palmer. AVe 
can see no evidence of misconduct in sucli an adjust- 
ment of accounts. 



Page 7 Gen. Xo. 9206 

Even though the terms of the trust were not prompt- 
ly and accurately carried out by the Bank and its Re- 
ceiver that does not in our judgment have any weight 
on the question of whether or not the claim or lien of 
the Appellees for enforcing stock liability was prior 
to that held by the Appellants. The full liability on 
the Comstock shares of stock had accrued prior to the 
death of Miss Comstock. This is definitely shown by 
Certificates of deposit and savings account books 
offered in evidence. 

The Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article XT, 
Section Six, provides that — 

"EverA' stockholder in a banking corporation or 
institution shall be individually responsible and 
liable to its creditors over and above the amount of 
stock, by him or her held, to an amount equal to his 
or her respective shares so held, for all its liabilities 
accruing wliile he or she remains such stockholder." 
Our Courts have frequently held that the estate of 
a deceased stockholder is liable upon the stock held 
and owned by the decedent in the same way and to the 
same extent that the stockholder was liable in his life- 
time. The only manner in wliich an estate can be re- 
lieved of this constitutional liability as a stockholder 
is by compliance with the provisions of the Administra- 
tion Act, and by the running of the general Statute of 
Limitations. SaiuJer.^ v. MercJwiJfs State Bmil-. 349 
111. 547. 

The fact that the bank, as Trustee, was authorized 
to sell the stock and failed to do so did not relieve the 
stock of its primary liability to the creditors of the 
bank which accrued before the death of Kate A. Com- 
stock. 

It is further contended by the Appellants that the 
Statute of Limitations has run against the claim of 
the Appellees ; that the funds of the estate had been 
distributed to the Trustee for the benefit of the cestui 
que trusts and were no longer a nart of the Estate of 
Kate A. Comstock. The indebtedness upon which the 
liability in this case is based is represented and sho^\Ti 
by a large number of certificates of dcTiosit, which were 
payable on presentation after maturity and endorse- 
ment of the respective certificates. Also upon a num- 
ber of savings accounts which were represented by 
pass books which provided for the withdrawal of the 
money upon presentation of the pass book and the 
giving of a receipt. All of these evidences of indebted- 
ness were in writing and hence the ten year Statute of 
Limitations applies. The records of the bank show 



Page 8 Gen. No. 9206 

that interest was credited on nearly all of the certifi- 
cates as late as 1929, and that the last interest was 
credited on the savings acconnts dnring the last year 
before the bank closed. The bank closed on Febrnary 
6, 1930. It wonld seem by such records that all of these 
debts were clearly renewed ■nnthin the last year prior 
to the closing of the banlc. The amendment to the 
complaint filed bv the Appellees, by which Appellants 
were made parties defendant was filed September 4, 
1934. 

"\Miile a large part of the distribntion of the trust 
estate was made dnring the years 1925 and 1926, the 
funds due to the Appellants were never definitely set 
off to the trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trusts 
and segregated from the assets of the estate. After 
the decree was entered in the liquidation suit allowing 
the claims of the Appellants to be preferred and in 
the aggregate sum of $7,425.00, Nora Molz, as Receiver 
of the Bank, set up as a reserve the said amount in 
order to pay the said preferred claims, and by her an- 
swer and report filed in said cause still has such sum 
in her hands awaiting the order of Court as to the 
proper parties to pay the same. It is our .iudgment 
that the suit filed by the Appellees in May 1930, and as 
amended in September, 1934, for the purpose of col- 
lecting the constitutional liability of the stockholders 
was not barred by the Statute of Limitations and the 
Court correctly found that the sum of $8,000.00, be re- 
covered from any monies in the hands of Nora Molz, 
as Receiver of The H. N. Schuyler State Bank, which 
were identifiable as coming from the estate or trust 
fund of Kate A. Comstock, deceased. Also that the 
claim of Appellees be satisfied first and prior to the 
preferred claims of the Appellants. 

The compromise and release of the liability of Ruth 
Schuyler Cole, ownei- of twenty shares of the bank 
stock, whollv independent and entirely separate from 
any of the 80 shares belonging to Kate A. Comstock 
during her lifetime, did not onerate as a release of the 
liability of any other stockholder. 

In July, 1936, the Appellants filed a petition in the 
liquidation suit asking for the discharge of The H. N. 
Schuyler St ate Bank and Nora Molz, Receiver of said 
Bank as Trustees of the said Trust Estate. While it 
is clear that the said Bank was not authorized to ac- 
cept or execute trusts, the Apnellants in this case dealt 
and co-operated with the bank in the capacity of 
Trustee over a period of «everal years, accepting pay- 
ments upon their particular bequests. The record 



Page 9 Gen. No. 9206 

shows that everything has been paid of the Trust funds 
of the Comstooli Estate, except the amount of $7,425.00 
reserved by the Eeoeiver to meet the preferred claims, 
the paATnent of which is suhject to the order of the 
Circuit Court. Under such circumstances the removal 
of such Tmstee would accomplish nothing and might 
necessitate additional costs. Such petition was prop- 
erly denied. 

We believe the Circuit Court further correctlv held 
that the Appellees as complainants in the stockholders 
liability suit were not entitled to recover from the Ap- 
pellants, First Presbyterian Cliurch, Louisa Clarke 
and Amelia Granda, the several sums paid to them by 
the bank, or the receivers of said bank prior to their 
having been made parties defendant to said suit. All 
of such payments were made voluntarily and ^vithout 
any notice that the claim of Appellees would be as- 
serted later. As to such payments the Appellees were 
clearly guilty of laches and can not now recover. 

Appellants challenge the jurisdiction of the Court 
to entertain the stockholders liability suit because they 
say the Statute does not authorize the bringing of any 
cause of action of this character against anyone but 
the stockholders and that Annellants were not stock- 
holders. The risrht of creditors to sue in equity to 
enforce stockholders liabilitv has been repeatedly up- 
hold by our Courts. Snnder.'^, ef a.l. v. Merchants State 
Bank, et al. 349 111. 547. Ameriean National Bank v. 
HnJ.'ien. 331 Til. fi22. Tn the latter case the Court held 
that the two facts essential to sustain a decree enforc- 
ing liability of a stockholder are that the plaintiffs 
should be creditors and the defendants found to be 
stockholders. Tn Uviov Trust Co. v. Shop maker. 258 
111. 564, it was held that where a claim against a de- 
ceased person has remained contingent during the 
whole period allowed by law for presenting claims 
against the estate and does not ripen into an absolute 
liability until the estate has been distributed to the 
legatees under the "Will, the claimant may maintain a 
bill in enuity against such legatees to reach the prop- 
erty of the estate received bv them. The funds sought 
to be reached were in the hands of Nora Molz, as Ee- 
ceiver, and as such she became an equitable garnishee, 
and the Court had jurisdiction to reach said funds by a 
suit in equity. 

It is our judgment that the trial Court did not err 
in his findings or in the Decree entered and the same 
is therefore affirmed. 

Affirmed. 



; _ , ^..,^^. i-axA ' Ol4/. a. / iC /'^ ^^ ■ ^^ 



Ipt , 



,^vac^ 



PUBUSHED IN AbSTEACT 



Louise Wjst; iTs'i^dniiiiisftratrix o^ the Estate of A^hur 
B. Wist, depeased, Plaintiflf-Ai)pellee, v. Norma^ 
B. PitC^rn atifl Frank 0:4*I'icodeinus, Jr., as \ 
Receivers o^ Wabash Eailway Company, 
a corpQjf4tion, and Thomas C. Russel, 
Defendant- Appellants. > si 
Gen. No. 9145 ^ " ''^ 



^ o i4 ® iL O * 



Mr. Justice Hayes delivered the opinion of the 
Court. 

Tliis case grows out of a railroad-crossing accident 
in the Village of Sibley, Illinois, on December 18, 1936, 
in which plaintiffs decedent was killed. 

Siblej', Illinois, is an incorporated village of about 
four hundred inliabitants, located in Ford County. 
State route number 47 runs north and south on the 
west edge of the village, and about half a block west 
of and parallel to the Wabash railroad. The princi- 
pal business block is on Sciota Street, and runs north 
and south. The Wabash railroad runs generally north 
and south bearing at a slight angle in a northwesterly 
direction as it comes into the village from the south 
and goes through the village. Ohio Street runs east 
and west and is the main thoroughfare connecting 
route 47 with the business section. The intersection 
of Ohio Street and Sciota Street constitutes the princi- 
pal business comer of the town. The main track of 
the Wabash railroad intersects Ohio Street at an angle 
less than a right angle, being eighty two degrees twen- 
ty one minutes. The depot is located just north of Ohio 
Street on the west side of the tracks. In addition to 
the main track, at the intersection of Ohio Street, there 
is a passing track which is 13.1 feet east of the main 
track, and a house track which is 11.1 feet east of the 
passing track. These three tracks which cross Ohio 
Street are planked. The crossing has the usual post 
and cross-arms bearing the word "railway crossing". 
The intersection of Sciota and Ohio Street is two hun- 
dred sLxty feet east of the Wabash main track. The 
Brandt Grocery Store is located at the northeast comer 
of Sciota and Ohio Street. At about eleven thirty 
o'clock on the morning of the day of the accident, 
Arthur B. Wist stopped at the Brandt Store. He had 



Page 2 , Gen. No. 9145 

a heavy load of flour and other merchandise on his 
truck. He received an order for sixteen sacks of flonr 
which he unloaded. He was late on his route and in 
a hurry and suggested to Mr. Brandt that they let the 
pay for the flour go until the next trip. He had been 
calling at the Brandt Store since the preceding April 
from one to three times a month, coming in from 
Bloomington on State Eoute 165. At Sibley, both state 
routes 47 and 165 are located on the west side of the 
Wabash track and do not run directly into the village. 
Most of the traffic from these state routes coming into 
the village cross on Ohio Street. The daily average of 
motor cars crossing the Wabash track at Ohio Street 
runs from three to four hundred. About one block 
south of Ohio Street and on the west side of Sciota 
Street is a concrete, block garage building, that ex- 
tends from Sciota Street west to within sixty or seventy 
feet of the east rail of the Wabash main track. Just 
south of Ohio Street and off the east side of the right- 
of-way of the Wabash railroad and parallel to the 
track there are a row of trees, — ten in number — then 
two additional trees just east of the last tree on the- 
south end. These trees are from twelve to fourteen 
inches in diameter and sixteen to seventeen feet apart. 
There is a tool house nine by fourteen, ten feet high 
which is five hundred forty-four feet south of Ohio 
Street and twenty five feet east of the main track. At 
the southwest comer of the intersection of Ohio and 
Sciota Street is a frame building occupied by Doctor 
Abslier as an office and just west of that is another 
frame building used as a beauty shop. The west side 
of this last building is one hundred fifty-eight feet 
east of the Wabash main track. 

It appears from the record that when Artlmr Wist 
left the Brandt Store, he could look dowTi Sciota Street 
across the fields south of the village and see the Wa- 
bash track. After he left the intersection, his view to 
the south was obstructed first by the doctor's office; 
second by the beauty shop ; and after he passed these, 
by the garage building which is about one block south 
of the doctor's office and runs within seventy feet of 
the track. Traveling west far enough to clear the west 
side of the garage building, his view was partially 
obstructed by the row of trees and the small tool house 
just west of the garage. The fact that the track bore 
at a slight angle to the southeast from Ohio Street, 
narrowed the distance from which he could see. The 
elevation of the track on Ohio Street and the territory 



Page 3 Gen. No. 9145 

adjacent to the south were about on a level. At the 
time of the accident, the deceased was in the employ 
of the General Mills Inc., driving their Ford V-8, one 
and a half ton truck, 1936 model, paneled body, cab 
enclosed with glass. 

The train in question was a passenger train having 
six cars, which was twenty-four minutes late and was 
traveling at about seventy miles per hour. They had 
left Decatur twenty-five minutes late. The train had 
scheduled two stops between Decatur and Chicago, one 
at Forrest for water, and one at Englewood to dis- 
charge passengers. The accident happened at twelve- 
eighteen P. M. The engineer testified that he made the 
station whistle for Sibley one long blast of the whistle, 
and at a quarter of a mile south of Ohio Street, he 
started the crossing whistle, which consisted of two 
longs, one short, and one long blast, which continued 
from the whistling post up to the crossing. As he 
finished the second blast, he noticed a car through the 
trees coming at a moderate rate of speed, whereupon 
he changed his whistle from the regailar crossing 
whistle to successive short blasts trying to attract the 
attention of the driver of the car, and then set his 
brakes in emergency. It was too close, "he couldn't 
save him". 

The plaintiff produced one witness that stated he 
didn't hear any whistle, but the defendants had a 
number of witnesses who testified definitely on this 
point, wliich clearly shows that the whistle was blown 
in the manner described in the engineer's testimony. 
It was in the AVinter and the cab windows in the truck 
were closed. At this same time and just north of the 
crossing on the house track, a box car was standing, and 
just a block north of the crossing on the east side of 
the track — and close to the house track — was a large 
grain elevator which obstructed the view, to some ex- 
tent, from the north. The records shows that Arthur 
.Wist approached the crossing at a very slow speed. 
Some witnesses put it at the rate of three miles per 
liour and some at the rate of five miles per hour. A 
fair analysis of the evidence and of the surrounding 
circumstances show that at a point thirty-three feet 
east of the east rail of the main line, he coiild see the 
track south for about four hundred fifty feet. The deci- 
sive point in the case is whether or not he exercised 
due care for his own safety or was guilty of contribu- 
tory negligence. In considering this point we are deal- 
ing in seconds. With the train traveling at seventy 



Page 4 Geu. No. 9145 

miles an hour, there is but throe or four seconds time 
between the time he first had an opportunity to see 
the train and the collision. At that time he Avas called 
upon to watch from the south as well as the north. In 
passing upon his conduct at this crucial moment, we 
have to face the situation as it appeared to him. 

It appears from the record that he had passed the 
first two tracks and was on the main track by the time- 
of the collision, as the truck was thro\\ai north and to 
tile west side of the track and up against the depot 
Imilding. The engineer testified, "He was three or 
four hundred feet south of the crossing when I changed 
the whistle from long blasts to short blasts." The 
fireman testified, "^^Hiy he bleAv two blasts of the 
whistle then gave a warning whistle and at the same 
time set the air in emergency and the crash came right 
now." The computation of time; the position of the 
train ; and the situation of the deceased at a given time 
are all question of fact for a jury. 

A train runs on a fixed track and is slow to start and 
slow to stop, and cannot be steered around objects or 
obstructions. A railway crossing is a knoA\qi place of 
danger and a driver approaching the railway crossing- 
with an oncoming train which he has knowledge of, 
or in the exercise of due care for his own safety he 
could ascertain, he is required to stop, and if he fails 
to do so, he is guilty of contributoi*}' negligence which 
bars the right of recovery. 

Counsel for defendants with great emphasis insist 
that, under the record, they are entitled to a finding 
by this court, and that the verdict is manifestly against 
the weight of the evidence. With this view we cannot 
agree, but it does appear that it is a close case on the 
evidence. 

Plaintiff charges in her complaint that this was a 
dangerous crossing; that the railroad provided no 
vmtchman, gates, wig-wag signals, light signals, bell 
signals, or other mechanical signal at said crossing to 
give warning of the approach of trains. The proof 
showed the only safety warning given by the railroad 
was the statutory cross-arms ^vith the words "railroad 
crossing" thereon. 

In the case of Wagner v. T. P. £ W. R. R. Co., 352 
111. 85, the Court says : 

"The rule in this state is that one crossing a rail- 
way track must approach it with an amount of care 
commensurate with the knowTi danger, but if the 
existence of the track would not be revealed to one 



Page 5 Gen. No. 9M5 

in the exercise of reasonable care the rnle cannot 
apply. A railway company in the rnnning of its 
trains is reqnired to exercise ordinai-y care and 
prudence to gmard against injury to those who may 
be traveling upon the public higlnvay in crossing- 
its tracks. The fact that the statute may provide 
one precaution does not relieve the company from 
adopting such others as public safety or common 
prudence maj' dictate. The ringing of a bell and 
the blowing of a whistle are not alone sufficient to 
excuse a railroad company from maintaining other 
means of warning the traveling public when condi- 
tions are such as shown in the case at bar." 
While it is true that the public is demanding lighter 
and faster transportation and the railroads, in keep- 
ing pace with the progress of the times, are warranted 
in furnishing this service, yet in doing so they should 
bring up the crossing signals for the traveling public 
so as to keep pace with their increased speed. The 
whistle, bell and cross-arm that served for so many 
years when trains were run from twenty to thirty 
miles an hour are lacking in public safety for the 
modern-day, stream-lined passenger train which 
travels at a rate three or four times as fast. 

Defendants contend that the deceased and his em- 
ployer were under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 
although this does not expressly appear in the record, 
except by an affidavit filed in support of a motion for 
a new trial and after verdict. All that the record 
shows is that the deceased was in the employ of the 
General Mills Inc., and worked out of Peoria, Illinois, 
selling and delivering articles of food with a Ford 
truck. Defendants further contend that plaintiff 
should have alleged that defendants were engaged in 
Interstate Commerce, and were not under the Act. It 
appears from examinatiou of the pleading that in each 
of the four counts that were submitted to the .I'ury, the 
defendants were charged with possessing, using and 
operating a certain railway which said railway then 
and there extended from the City of Chicago, in the 
State of Illinois, through the corporate limits of the 
Village of Sibley, in the County of Ford in the State 
of Illinois, thence in a southwesterly direction through 
the State of Illinois to the City of St. Louis, in the 
State of Missouri, and that said defendants were also 
then and there possessed of and operating a locomo- 
tive engine A\"ith a train of baggage, express, mail and 
passenger cars attached on said railway, and although 



Page 6 Gen. No. 9145 

the pleading does not specifically state that the defend- 
ants were engaged in Interstate Commerce it states 
sufficient facts from which that inference can be reas- 
onably deducted. This allegation would, in all prob- 
ability, be insufficient when tested before trial and 
verdict by a motion to strike, but after verdict where 
no motion has been made, it is ample to support the 
verdict. 

After verdict, the rule by which pleadings are con- 
strued against the pleader is reversed and anvthing 
necessary to be plead which may fairly be inferred 
from the declaration may be regarded as alleged. 
Wagner v. C. B. I. d P. By., 277 HI. 114. The question 
raised in the WagTier case was whether the declaration 
sufficiently charged that Wagiier was engaged in In- 
terstate Commerce at the time he was injured. The 
language used was ambiguous and cumbersome. In 
passing on this point, the court says : 

"The declaration as tested by a demurrer might 
properly have received that construction, since it 
referred to the previous averment that the defend- 
ant was engaged in inter-State commerce, but after 
verdict the rule by which pleadings are construed 
against the pleader is reversed and anything neces- 
sary to be proved which may fairly be inferred from 
the declaration will be regarded as alleged. A 
favorable construction of the declaration to support 
the verdict would be that the defendant being- 
engaged in inter-State commerce, and it being the 
duty of the plaintiff, as an employee, to couple the 
cars, it might fairly be inferred that he was engaged 
at the time in an act included in the business carried 
on by the defendant in inter-State commerce." 
A railroad company engaged in Interstate Commerce 
is not subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act. 
Goldsmith v. Paijne, 300 111. 119. 

The trial court denied defendants' motion for a 
severance. The engineer of the train in question was 
joined as a defendant with the receivers of the railroad 
company. We are of the opinion that the ruling of 
the court was correct. Error is assigned on the form 
of verdict given by the court which did not separate 
the defendant, Russell the engineer, from the receivers. 
Only two forms of verdict were given for the defend- 
ants, — one finding the defendants all guilty, and the 
other finding the defendants not giiilty. In the ease of 
Meere v. Holland Fvrnace Co., 269 App. 164 (Third 
District), this court says: 



Page 7 Gen. No. 9145 

"It necessarily follows that if the agent charged 
with the commission of the act complained of be not 
guilty, a jndg-ment conld not be recovered against 
appellee, the principal, upon the ground of re- 
spondeat superior. The judgment in this ease in 
favor of the City of Chicago is a complete bar to an 
action against the appellee for its negligence in ex- 
ercising any permissive rights appellee may have 
granted it. To make appellee liable upon the theory 
under discussion, a case must have existed against 
the city." To the same effect are Anderson v. West 
Chicago St. R. Co., 200 111. 329; Larson v. Hines, 220 
111. App. 594; Bvnyan v. American Glycerin Co., 230 
111. App. 351. In the last case cited the court held: 
"In this State the law is well settled that where an 
action on the case is brought against two defend- 
ants and one of them is liable only on account of 
the rule of respondeat superior for the negligence 
of the other, if the latter is found not guilty such 
finding is a complete bar to the action against the 
former. Hayes v. Chicago Tel. Co., 218 111. 414; 
Anderson v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 200 111. 329; 
Antrim v. Legg, 203 111. App. 482; Larson v. Hines, 
220 m. App. 594; Billstrom v. Triple Tread Tire Co., 
220 III. App. 550. The weight of authority outside 
of Illinois seems to be to the same effect. Doremus 
V. Root, 23 Wash. 710, 54 L. R. A. 649; Hayes v. 
Chicago Tel. Co.. 218 111. 414. 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 764; 
McGinnis v. Chicago, R. I. £ P. Ry. Co., 200 Mo. 
347, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 880; Southern Ry. Co. v. 
Harhifi; 135 Ga. 122, L. R. A. (N. S.) 404; Hobbs v. 
Illinois Cent. R. Co., Ill Iowa 624, L. R. A. 191 7 E. 
1023." 

In the present case, the charge by the plaintiff is 
the negligent operation of the train as it approached 
and crossed the crossing in question, while under the 
complete control of the engineer. If he was guilty, 
the receivers were guilty under the doctrine of re- 
spondeat superior, and if he was not guilty, the re- 
ceivers w^ere not giiilty, so that the trial court was 
warranted in instructing the jury in the form that it 
did. 

The defendant Thomas C. Russell, the engineer, was 
called by plaintiff in plaintiff's case in chief, under 
section 60 of the Civil Practice Act, for cross examina- 
tion by the adverse party and after this cross examina- 
tion was completed, the defendants asked the court to 
be permitted to cross examine him. This was denied, 



Page 8 Gen. No. 9145 

in which ruling there was no error. Counsel in their 
brief now suggest that what they intended to say was, 
for leave to examine. Upon examination of section 60, 
and taking into consideration rules of practice and 
procedure in a nisi prius court, the defendants were 
properly entitled to examine him as is usual on what 
is commonly called re-direct, for the purpose of clarify- 
ing or explaining evidence brought out in the cross 
examination, but the request in the trial court was not 
for this, but for the right to cross examine. It appears 
from the record that this witness was afterwards called 
in behalf of the defendant and testified fully on the 
case so there was not error in this regard. 

In the giving and refusing of instructions and in the 
arguments of counsel at the trial, we find no error suf- 
ficient to warrant a reversal. The case was properly 
submitted to a .jury on questions of fact under the is- 
sue. Nothing appears in the record to warrant setting 
aside the verdict of the jury, nor the judgment of the 
court below. It is therefore affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed. 

1^^.14 (A-19598— 14) 



' ' ' PuBUSHED IN AbSTEACT 

In the Matter of the Estate of ^nti P|f f i, Inccahpetfit, 
Joe Menicbetti, Conservat^*, Appelant, v/ Franli 

T. Hines, Administrator of Xieteraris' / '''^^-^---^'^ 
Affairs, and H. R. Pool, Guaj-dian 
ad Litofi for Santi Paffi,*- 
iMfeompetent, Appellees. c\ f\ f^ ~T \ -^ r% ^ 
Gen. No. 9218 *' ' ' ^ '- ^ 

Mr. Justice Hayes delivered the opinion of the 
Court. 

This is an appeal from an Order and Judgment of 
the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, which affirmed 
the Probate Court of Sangamon County in sustaining 
objections to an investment of nine thousand five hun- 
dred ($9,500.00) dollars, made by Joseph Menichetti, 
Conservator of the Estate of Santi Paffi, Incompetent, 
in mortgage bonds of the Joseph Brothers Lumber 
Companj^, and charging the conservator iwith said 
amount, together with the accrued interest, aggregating 
thirteen thousand three hundred ($13,300.00) dollars. 

It appears from the record, that the conservator, 
before making these investments, had applied for and 
obtained the approval of the Probate Court of Sanga- 
mon County, and had annually filed a report of his 
acts and doings, which reports were approved by the 
Court up to July 20, 1933. The subsequent reports 
were not approved as to the investments in the Joseph 
Brothers Lumber Company Bonds. No guardian ad 
litem was appointed or appeared for the Ward at the 
time of conservator's application for authority to make 
the investments in question, nor was any notice given 
to the ward or to anyone on his behalf. These pro- 
ceedings were ex parte. 

The conservator filed a current report in the Pro- 
bate Court, covering the period from July 20, 1933, 
to July 16, 1934. The Administrator of Veterans' 
7\.ffairs filed objections to said report, on the grounds 
that said investments were not legal as investments of 
conservatorship funds. The objections were sustained 
by the Probate Court, and an order was entered by that 
Court setting aside, first, all former orders authorizing 
said investments, and second, the several orders ap- 



Page 2 Gen. No. 9218 

proving the various reports of the conservator. An 
appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Sangamon 
County, and H. R. Pool, Attome}^ for the Veterans' 
Administration, was appointed guardian ad litem for 
the insane wai'd, whereupon he adopted the objections 
of the administrator of veterans' affairs, fonuerly 
filed in the Probate Court. The Circuit Court entered 
an order holding that said Joseph Brothers Lumber 
Company Bonds were not secured by a first mortgage ; 
that all orders of the Probate Court approving said 
im-estments were void; and that the estate of the Ward 
was entitled to recover from the conservator the sum 
of thirteen thousand three hundred dollars. The Court 
further sustained the order of the Probate Court dis- 
allowing- said investments. The mortgage bonds of 
Joseph Brothers Lumber Company defaulted in the 
payment of their interest in 1934. 

At common law a conservator has authority to loan 
the funds of his Ward. Our statute has limited this 
authority by setting out specific classes of loans the 
conservator may make, and provides that loans upon 
real estate shall l)e secured by a first mortgage or trust 
deed not to exceed half the value thereof. It further 
provides that all loans shall be subject to the approval 
of the Court. 111. Rev. Stats., Ch. 86, Sec. 18. 

One of the principal objections of the gniardian ad 
litem to the investments in question is that the mort- 
gage instrument gives the mortgagor the I'ight to sell 
the mortgaged premises, or some part thereof, with 
the consent of the trustee, but ^\'ithout the consent of 
the bondholders, and to use the proceeds of the balance 
to redeem outstanding bonds or to purchase or con- 
struct additional i^hysical property for the company. 
He contends that the provision of the trust deed could 
be so construed as to authorize the mortgagor, with 
the consent of the trustee, to sell a part of the land and 
with the proceeds to purchase or construct additional 
physical property for the mortgagor, and that this pro- 
vision of the deed would authorize the company to sell 
part of the land and to purchase different and less 
valuable land, in lieu thereof, or to construct physical 
property which would include personal property for 
the mortgagor to the detriment and loss of the bond- 
holders. 

The Statute in question is mandator>' in its pro- 
visions, and the Probate Court is limited in authoriz- 
ing only those investments included Avithin the specific 
language of the Statute. Any order of the Probate 



Page 3 Gen. No. 9218 

Court not within the intent and meaning of the Statute 
is absohitely void and of no effect, and provides no 
protection to the conservator who, in the event of 
loss, seeks to rely upon the order. 

The clear meaning of the language used in the 
Statute, "loans upon real estate shall be secured by 
first mortgage or trust deed thereon, and not to ex- 
ceed half the value thereof" is that the mortgagee 
shall become possessed of an equitable first lien upon 
specific land, to secure the payment of the debt, which 
lien, so to speak, follows the land, and it is clear that 
the instrument in question which permits release of the 
specific land without payment of the debt and without 
consent of mortgagee, and permits a substitution of 
other property either real or personal does not meet 
the requirements of the Statute in question. 

Where, as in this case, the investment is made in 
part only of a large number of bonds secured by the 
same mortgage or trust deed, the individual bondhold- 
ers must be provided, "under the mortgage instru- 
ment" ■ft'ith parity of lien if the mortgage bond is to 
be regarded as qualif^nug imder the Statute. 

"Wliere a mortgage secures several notes there 
is only one lien to secure the entire debt. The 
statute is directed at the kind and quality of the 
mortgage. A note which by reason of its earlier 
maturity has priority over all other notes secured 
by a first mortgage is as effectually prior to all other 
liens as if it were the only note secured by the mort- 
gage. If it is on a parity with the other notes, it is 
none the less secured by a first mortgage unaiTected 
by the ownership of the other notes, and a mortgage 
which secures a note subject to the priority of earlier 
maturing notes is not a first mortgage as to that 
note." In re Lalla's Estate, 362 HI.' 621. 
The Statute provides that the loan shall not exceed 
one-half the value of the land mortgaged as security. 
Therefore, the Court must look to the value of the 
specific land mortgaged to assure that it has value 
equivalent to t^\^ce the amount of the loan. This con- 
templates a continuing lien upon the same specific land, 
for, if there be power in the mortgagor to substitute, 
the value of the substituted land may not be twice the 
amount of the outstanding loan. Hence the Statute 
requires a continuing mortgage lien upon certain 
specific land worth twice the amount of the loan. 

The contention of appellant that the loans in ques- 
tion were approved by the Probate Court, and that 



Page 4 Gen. No. 9218 

the current reports sho-\ving they were approved by 
said court was final and afforded protection to the con- 
servator, not-wdthstanding their faihire to meet the re- 
quirements of the statute, is not tenable. In the case 
of In re Lalla's Estate, supra, this same point was 
raised. There the Kellogg investments were purchased 
under the authority of prior orders of the Probate 
Court, and also were recited in the fiduciary's inter- 
mediate reports, which were approved by the Court. 
The Court determined that the notes in the Kellogg' 
case, which were subject to the prioritj- of other notes 
maturing earlier than those purchased by the guardian, 
were not first mortgage loans in the sense of the 
Statute, and the objections to these loans in the Kel- 
logg Estate were sustained, regardless of the fact that 
the Probate Court had definitelj' authorized that the 
investment be made. 

The Supreme Court in afiirming the Appellate 
Court in reference to the Kellogg paper stated in its 
opinion : 

"The remaining notes acquired in the Kellogg" 
case were subject to the priority of other notes ma- 
turing earlier than those purchased by the guardian 
and Avere not first mortgage loans in the sense of 
the statute. The acceleration clause in case of de- 
fault did not affect such priority. The objections 
to the approval of these loans were correctly sus- 
tained." 

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the order of 
the Probate Court which was affirmed by the Circuit 
Court, was proper, and for the reasons herein stated, 
we hold that the Order and Judgment of the Circuit 
Court should be and is hereby affirmed. 

Judgment Affirmed. 

(A-19o98— 14) 



AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the 6th day of February, i 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, withl 
and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 

Present — The Hon. FRED G, WOLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hon. BLAINE HUFFMAN, Justice 
Hon. FRANKLIN R. DOVE, Justice 
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk 
E. Jo WELTER, Sheriff 



n 
n 



30 5 I.A. 168 



BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On A''\^ 9 "". \Q/\() 
the ODlnion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the words and figures following, viz; 



Gen. No. 9517 Ag. No. 10. 



IN THE. 

APPSLLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 

SECOND DISTRICT 



FS^^UAHT,, TSai, A.D.3f$40 



/ I 
/ / *' 

/ / / 

Lewis K. ilrras^^r.onj, / 

P}^tiit1ff, A|peli4e I /Aj^eal fron the Giroi it 

J^ I I i I / Co%t of V/hiteside Comity, 

vs.'^ / I / Vy Illinois. 

Ben Sharer, f 

De f end ant , App ell ant . 

WOLi^S, P.J". 

Lewis II. Armstrong brought a suit in the Circuit Court of 
Whiteside Countj*", Illinois, against the defendant, 3en Sharer, 
in an action of trespass. The complaint filed consisted of four 
coirnts. The first three counts charge that the defendant did 
break and enter a certain corn crib bBlonging to the plaintiff, 
and took therefrom, corn valued at ^500.00, The fourth count 
charges the defendant with vdlful and v^anton trespass in taking 
the corn, and asks for damages in the sum of i?5,000.00. The 
defendant filed his ansv/er, which is a general denial of all the 
allegations set forth in the complaint. 

The evidence of the plaintiff shov/p that he was a tenant 
on the farm in Rock Island County, Illinois, v/hich v.'as owned and 
controlled by Miss Cora Von Steenbergh of Indiana, Under the 
terms of the lease, the owner was to receive one-third of all 
crops raised upon the farm, as rent, including soy beans and 
sorghum. The soy beans and sorghum raised upon the farm had been 
sold by the plaintiff, but the proceeds not accounted for to the 
landlord. The corn had been picked and placed in a double crib. 
The man v/ho operated the inechanlcal corn picker testified that as 
he picked the corn, he woiold pick six rows for the tenant snd four 
rows for the l^widlord. The corn was hauled to the crib as picked. 

The defendant, Ben Sharer, owns and operates an elevator at 
Albany, Illinois, He, together mth several of his employees, 



,01 .oTI .^A VI?,^ .oH .ns^ 



,Tf*^ixfoO el 






.6V 



to Siuo'O ^hsoiro exlcf xil Hub b idiisoid axioid-ejnxA .H eiwoJ 
,^sij3j13 xxoC ^w^ifiBnolefc add' &BaiB^s ,eioiilIII ,Y;fnjjoO ofilaed'XilV/ 
•Tirol lo f)9;fal8floo fislit d-nlBlcpnoo edT .eesqBei.t to ■r'-.lcfoj; ric nl 
bib ^fJUB&notefe eriJ- J-Bxid" agnBilo a^mroo 6»iriJ 
,l'?:itnxjslQ OiU- o^ jviilanolacf cflis riTOO rrl.'^cfipc r TnJrfo ftrts ^f^f^Tcf 

c-ijj-oo il^tiyoi eiJ? ,O0.00?iJ *b fiexri.s 
•%iil3[8^ al B&aqasrs.^ notoBMi baa Xirtlilw diftm ^fUB&rtalafi ^rld eeariBiio 
OilT .00.000,$$ 1Q flura •!!* x:i aaaflflBl; lol a^Ufi 6ns ,ar£oo edt 
9di LIb Jo iBlaQb Ifiiaaaa b el iteiifW ^lewaajB aid £>dllt d'XL&l>ii8liQ£ 

. .JTiifllciinoo oif;t at Aiiot &^b snolJ'Bse-t-Le 
Jnanso a asw sri d-jedi^J aworle tltialAlq »ri^ !to oonaJbJtT© sxfT 
boB fcenwo ei3w rloiriw ,aioiiiIXl jYrf'ni/oO banletl 3foofl jol lartBt etl& no 
eilc^ isSjeU .flUfiiJbiil to jlaiacfnsoifS noV ^loO aaiJ4 y^ fcelloiitnoo 
lis lo ftixxld'-eiio evieoei ocf qbw aoflvro s.lJ- ^eeB9l &di 1o zanet 
ba£ Qjojeed voa aa-t-&JJJtoxii: i^ce^ q^ artsl eri^ iioc[x; fiealBi aqoTO 
floQcf J&Bd nrxBl ©ild- coqxr fcselai inuris'toa f)nj3 aiiserf yob eriT .curiisioe 
ed* o# uot beimsoooB *on aBseoonq ©xid" *r;cf ,'illJnii5l(j adt ^€ filoe 
«tfiT:Q eldi/of' -q f)93{oJtq xisacf fisri .bnoLba&J^ 

as ifBxi^ fisllidcdd •xe:„>:oi:t5 r^Too liic-tnBXlCf 
•n/ol l>iiB cfj^Bned- &di lot awoi xta alolq fiJx^cv ex:. ,ii'::oc i^:-..;' i)®:H0X'4 ql\ 
.59iolq SB cfl-xs ©iid' o& belsnd bjbw xtttoo adT .MoXJ&jobI ©rid" lol - -- 
3-B no&KrBle ii£. aed-aisqo Ijob eowo ,rc©iBilS rteS « iJ-jxebcol©^ ^-""^ 

,aeOYOXLifiI9 Bill to r, .-r..--r^.„ i{c)-_tw 7/-'.+-«^v.n ; ^j^^ ^p^.-,.---r 



-2- 



went to the crib in cuestion, and started to shell the corn, tut 
the shellar brolce d07/n, and the corn which xvas shelled v/as hauled 
to the elevator. The bal^Jice of the corn in the crib, with the 
exception of thirty or fort3/- bushels, was hauled av/ay by Lir. Sharer. 
At the time lir. Sharer took the corn, there v/as sorae dispute be- 
tween Arnstrong and Sharer, as to the ovmership of it, Arrastrong 
claimed that Sharer had no right to take it, as the corn belonged 
to him. lir. Sharer claimed that he had bought the corn from _Iiss 
Yon Steenbergh. The plaintiff did not claim the corn on the west 
side of the crib, but admitted that was rent corn, but did claim 
all of the corn on the east side of the crib. 

The defendant called Sylvia Young who said she lived in 
Frankfort, Indiana, She testified that on November 19, 193S, she 
went to the farm with Miss Yon Steenbergh v/here Mr. Armstrong was 
picking; corn, and that she heard a conversation between Miss 
Yon Steenbergh and ilr. Armstrong; that they discussed the picking 
of the corn and I^, Armstrong said that the best place to sell the 

corn was to ?;!r, Ben Sharer; that Miss Yon Steenbergh said that she 

corn 
was going to stay until the entire/crop was picked, shucked sjid 

delivered to the elevator; that she and Hiss Von Steenbergh, on 
Thanksgiving Day, Vt^ftifl to the home of Mr. arrastrong and had a con- 
versation with him relative to the corn, and Mr. Armstrong said 
that Miss Yon Steenbergh could take eight hundred bushels of corn 
for her share of the crop, and that Ben Sharer would shell the corn, 

that Armstrong said that he owed liLss Yon Steenbergh for one-third 

her 
of the sorghum and beans and he would pay Miss Yon Steenbergh/one- 

third with corn; that if there was not eight hundred busheii of 

corn in one crib, that iiir. Sharer should go to the other crib and 

take enough to settle on a basis of eight hundred bushels; that 

ivir. Sharer should go to the west crib first, and if there wasn't 

enough to make eight hundred bushels, then he should go to the 

east crib and remove enough of that corn to make a total of eight 

hxindred bushels. 



-s- 



boLuBd 3BW b»LlQda ejsw riol/^r rr-TOE or'.t tnt jrrvro-*- si^oncf rtelloria edt 
&sii ild'Evr jdlio GXict xfi: ntco .loJsval© ©if;f o* 

-ecf .5ox;qs±i) er.ioB sbw aiBiii ,nnoo Sxi.t ioo,t loifiuda .iM emit ©dd' *A 
gnoTd-sflKtA ,tt to Qtieieexfo ed^ oi bb jietfixlE &«is gaot^an^^ n^ewd' 
fi©30,oXed CTO© 3x1;. 0>:Bt oJ- ^f 0£j1 leijexii^. jfBrto LeiuiBic 

aal?i laoi't aioo ©xld' Wstrotf bAd ed J-exIit beuaJifllo lertfiilt; .iM .laixl o;t 
;ta9w 6rict flo ctioo exld^ xoIbIo tfon bib tllialslq ©dT .xJggietfnee^tE /loV 
cUbIo f>xl> S'wd ,iiioD d-nei eew itBxW Jb©d'd"laLB d"ucr ,cliio ed& lo ©BIb 
.cfiio ©ilit lo sMb ifajB© ©iif ao rraoo er!t lo lis 
Til eila f>ljB8 oAv niruoT bIvIxE bellao &nAba!ol9b ©dffi 
eiia ,8Cvl*J. ,91 ^edxnev .ri;f J&eltld'Be^ tj . 

aBW SJCtoii^t iiw xi^'iedrroe^G coY aai . .obI «i) 

cd'Be'revnoo a fiisexl ©rift. 

©xicr 11: -• j-i^xio JDXjia snoidej:^'!.. . 

©lie J-BXJ.V- I'lisa li^i-ifairosjc noV aeJtM d'Bricf- {ioiJ8xl£ as . 

bsxj2 be-^ouda .f-eaifoiq bbw cioio\eitfa9 ©dcT Xlctm/ ^bj ou niixu:^ sjjw 

no ,xlsiecfxi©©5c noV aalM Iuib ©rfa iad^ jid^bv©!© eil* od fieri ©Tll©f» 

-noo r> bsd bas aaoi^aimj; .iM Ito paod ©itf 6* ijl*" ., "^'^ •^' f-vtsainBrPT 

i)iBa SJKoid"8iii!iA .iM fcna ^xwoo ed^ ot erl&Ble's. ^...'. ^^..^ .^otiB^-ier 

XXIDO lo aloxlBxrcf fjenbnjj'jtl J^risi© ©3/b;J- f>Iiroo r^iacfneed-E xioY aalM jtBitt 

it^oo exid- Il9ila bliKyw iBiadB a©S J;BxfcJ' ficB ,qoio edi to eiBds roii 10" 

Jbililct-exto aol xlsiecfneetfe noV aelK fcewo ad tsili biai anorcd'axna.' 

Texl 
-onoV.3i9cfn©a#8 npV aelM "^ciq fiXx/ow ©xl l>xie axiBed ban smst^nimi o 

lo ii-^inud b's^ibrxfri td^^Jo fen saw f»rr9ri# tt^fds itvr' 

I&dBud Jb©iJ. d^jotoac 

axlBirtf i.^ 



-3- 

Cora Von Steenbergh testified that she lived in Frankfort, 
Indiana, and owned the faria rented to I/Ir, .4rrastrong; that she was 
on the farm on the 21st of ITovenber and had a conTersation viith 
-^r. Armstrong; that iors. Young was present when she had a con- 
versation with ilrmstrong in regard to the rent for the place, and 
ilrnstrong said that he v/ould settle for eight hundred bushels of 
corn; that he first sadd he would settle by dividing and picking 
the rows and she said that she v;ould only settle by actual bushels; 
that he was supposed to deliver the corn to the market; that 
Armstrong said that she was to get eight hundred bushoLs of corn, 
and pay for one-third of the crop '.'/hich should be one -third of the 
sorghum, ono-third of tho beans, and her share of the corn and to 
cover the expense of hauling it to the market; that she said if 
there wasn't eight hundred bushels of corn on the vmst side of the 
crib, that they would take enough out of the east side to make up 
the eight hundred bushels, and that J.Ir. Armstrong said that that 
v/ould be all right; that she then went to Mr. Sharer, sold the corn 
to him and lUr. Sharer v/as to go out shell and haul the corn, 

jih?. Ben Sharer testified in his ovm behalf, end stated that 
h^ was in the grain, olevator and coal business at Albany, Illinois; 
that he had loiovm JJlr, L. Armstrong for culte a while; that he knew 
the Von Steenbergh farm, v/hich is about eight niles southv/est of 
Albany; that about Thanksgiving time of 1938, Hiss Von Steenbergh 
came to him and wanted him to go to the f ajna to get sight hundred 
bushels of corn; that he bought the corn from her; that she xvent to 
the farra mth hin and showed him vvhere the corn v/ae; that she v/as 
there with him on two different occasions; that he went to the place 
and got the corn vjhich actually vreighed sis hundred fifty-one bushels; 
that he paid Miss Von Steenbergh for this corn. He also testified 
in regard to J,tr. Arrastron^g having a conversation with him regarding 
the price of the corn when he w",s getting the corn at the crib; that 
while they v/ere shelling the corn, the sheller brokej' ajid the last 
of the corn was taken out in the ear. The evidence shows that there 
were three hundred twenty-nine bushels of corn in the west crib. 



£ fcfirf '^ ■■' 

1 -. r rr C' 



...._ „,-..-.- --,^-.» TOl eld^^ea fiXrrov- (• ' .t'f'.+ ^Ibb snoiJ-BiinA 

gnlAolq JbaB aiilJilvl^ xd oI;J-*9« JbXxrow axl ^_ ^ - yytl J'bjIj jirtoo 

jeloi'-.^d iBi/JoB Y<^ C'lj^fc'C- Tjino filuow srfs Jsri;t fcliLb aria ban awo'x erid' 

o-fixtj i^t>i'.-iy': -J aioo BAt aevlXftfc n^ foEocrrira ejsw ©il .^axld- 

,fln;oo 'io a.®ffr: o-r' fiet^'^-frf ctriale d-e^ o,;t aBtv anoact-axanA 

©il* to b%l >=: rfo^rfvr ffoio eild' to UnlAt-^ao ret ^^q fme 

Oct bciB xtio© ©ri^ to - , :xLe9rf erict to fiil£(d--oiio ,inxrxl8ioa 

tl f)i:A8 9iv d-i anli. ;aii»ixxe. erf* "i»«!00 

efiXe d. aXsileucf fioiLrurxI Jtxlal© tf'cajsw 9i9ii.& 

• rlT^iioae e^lerf fc-Cxrow ^edt &BSi.^ ta'tao 

oibnuil d-xlsXe* edS 

■■'■ • £i.Q;ow 

. •■-'■'-;-"- . - 'dd oi 

-itXcJ-aed- Tei^TrfS net . 

talBtii ©ild" CJl 8BW wrf 

lot 5Mi<: motnl bjui 9d &Bdi 

■lorfnesiffc. noV ©£!;)■ 

'lA 

' 1 i>©JiiBW bejs atXii oj 3m£!0 

.ivi JilgiiOd ©rf c : • Cailai/cf 

j-n^yisttxi) ov;-;r i:o £xd ilopv sasriiT 

■^i.3w ^XXjsirtfOB rfolrirr aioo exid" cfog Jbaja 

> ^...v -»r3T[eGrxi0s#e floY aslr '■^•■-- -^ d-sjl;? 

.tTBxf siJoicfajiriA ,iM •-.■- ^.-...^91 al 

^. . ., ;.. -...v/ sxl flftriw £1100 9jd;f to ©sl'scf ©ri* 

oXIooc, vrfi ,mcoo ©di sni-£J-«^s 'f'J^®''" YS^f^^ ©Xixfw 

. . :;9 9ilJ ai *x.ro a@-A£'& aBW flIOO ?-!^>? to 



' ^loclXXI ,'\2;£iBd: 
wsflai erf iBd& jeX; 
to d'a9'»Kl;f-0c; 

o* jfjctev 

laXsrfeJKf Siio-Tfittit Jbe 

:&rLi idl. . 



«cfiTO ^sew erf^ at moo ■"-" sXerfai/d or[.I:xi-\-;tiiew.t fje^fiiaurf © 



-u- 



IG rebiittal Ivir. Armstrong said that hs told liiss Von :teenlDergli 
he would give her one hundred lElfty bushels of corn for her sliare 
of the sorghum and. beans, but denied proiiiising her that he would 
give her eight hundred bushels of corn. On crose-ezaniination he 
admitted that 'feliss Von Steenbergh and ^'^rs. Young asked him for eight 
hundred bushels of corn, but he said, "I didn't tell them nothing." 

The case was subraitted to a jury v.^.o found the issues in favor 
of the plaintiff and assessed his damages at |;570.00. Judgment 
was entered on the vordlct e^ad it is from this judgment that the 
appeal is prosecuted. The q_uestion for this Ociirt to decide, "is 
7/hether this verdict is supported by the preponderance of the 
evidence,** It has long been the law that a verdict of a jury on 
a controverted question of fact should be final and binding upon 
a court of reviev/, unless the verdict is nanifestly against the 
Yfeight of the evidence. Fron a reviev; of all of the evidence in 
this case, it is oui- conclusion that the verdict of the jury is 
against the manifest \veight of the evidence, and that the judgment 
should not be allowed to stand. The judg^ient is therefore reversed 
and the cause remanded. 

Reversed and cause renanded. 



-A- 



eiBria lerl tot moo to eleitexM Y^'i-^^ '^^'^ i<5ij ©I'i-s jjlijow eii 

bluovr ©n d'jBjrtJj' leil snlBljnono[ b^Xusi) ■J\i6 ^zjx^eid ban mud^ios 9At ^ 
8d nol^tBH-tDiBxe-eaono rtO ,aico 1o aleiiejjcf L^ifcitai' .trfsi?. • 

" . ynlil;fcxi sexist LLb& &*al>lb I" ,61fle sd tvd ,j .lodnircf fceifimrxi 

* r-.uTi ,00.0V5# *« eeaBiiisJb axxi beaa^aaa JE>fl» lllf-ifrnirXtj ai.o x,- 

uK^ o^xld- d-ii9ins&i/t 8-c^^ fl'^'rt b1 ^ ' '■■■■ •:- --T 9,1* no J&snd^na «£*.' 

al" ,9f>loofi dJf *iiroO ^LAi rtolt n. 1 - -,^1. ,^ci*iro9ao*fq c.t lAaqqa 

Q&'i to soxLS^efifloqeaq 8ii* "^cf Jbcd"ioq(j[ira «1 tf>iflTP^< .; fxr.t ttnii^ttn 

ofl:* :^aitl:BSB xJ^^aoliitari ax ^oiMev oritf aaeXrw ,v.elYei lo ♦'tuoe js 

Jboaievei ©Tol-slejicf al ta&^^lnj^ oUT ,baAt8 o<i fsevk-olie »cf iJorr Mxrorie 

«J6ef).a6nei aa«jBO edt baa 

.bsbnji'-na-i Q2,ts9t> bns bee.i3ye>?i 



STATE OF ILLINOIS. 

r-SS. 

SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 
of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



Clerk of the Appellate Court 



l\ 



.1i-^% 



AT A TlCSIi 0¥ 



APPZLLAT.] COURT, 






3gun and held at Ottav/a, on Tuesday, the 7th day of May, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois; 



Present -- The Hon. FRLD G. '70LF3, Presiding Justice 
Hon. BLAIHE HUFPriJT, Justice 
Hon. PR.'iIII-XIH R. DOVE, Justice 
JUSTUS L. JOIHTSOIT, Cleric ^ 
S. J. \'Sj.TER, Sheriff 



I 



^ 



BS IT REKEIIBERED, that afterv/ards, to-v/it: On MAY 1 K !940 
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Cleric's Office of 
said Court, in the v/ords and figures followinc, viz: 



.'tl/.-^eff 



tCl bnooBB, er.t tol |>nR tiir 



GM. NO. 948S 



AG.EIID.,\ IIP. 23 



IN THE 
APPJiDLLilT'-C COURT OF ILLINOIS 
SECOND DIS'^-IC^J^ 



February T^l^^'^ A. _#. 194-0« ^-. 
4 J^ 




TEE P5IOPL13 OF THE STATE OF i^LINOIS, ) 
et al, I * 

Aji|)ellees, 

/ 



FSRBIIRT R. JON:^-, et al, 
COLW.IBIA CASUALTY COfelPaTY, et al, 



Appellant and Go-appellant. 



APPEAL FROM TH3 CinCUIT 
COURT OF ?*1LL GOUITTY. 



DOVS, J. 

At the Noventier olection 1930, Herbert R. Jones v/as elected 
Coimty Treasurer of V.ill County for a tern beginning December 1, 
1930 and ending December 3, 193A-. He qualified and on lloveiiber 15, 
1930 entered into a bond as provided by law in the suia of 4'250,000.O0 
with nine individuals as sureties. On January 27, 1931 he entered 
into the required statutory bond as County Collector in the sura of 
1850,000.00 with eighteen individuals as sureties. On February 22, 
1932 he again entered into another bond as county collector in the 
sura of ;|755,000.00 with the Columbia Casualty Company as surety. 
On January 11, 1933 he entered into another bond as collector in the 
sum of si;400,000.00, also mth the Columbia Casualty Company as surety. 

On Aiigust 13, 1936 the People of the State of Illinois acting 
by and through the State's Attorney of V/lll County, filed the Instant 



8c, 



SHT va. 
3iOTn:j.ir "50 t 



?.!0H^ JJ.^J 






,ciOHi.- ; SHT 10 E.I 

,aee.r. 



{ ..tcj3ll©qqj3-o0 baB ^tnAlIeqqA 



fced^oeXe asK eeaoT, .fl d-iedieH ,0C9I aoiivela i9tffl»voU ©dJ ... 

,1 lecfcieoaQ aniaalsed api«# b lol ifd-iuioO IliVf to TtaiwaaortT -"i^xu/o'. 
. ,^X iBdoBVoM ao baa fiaillXaxip ell ,-M<^l ,C 'lecfneoeG gnlj&aa baa Qi^. 
00.000,O^S;4 lo iOwa ©il* £tl wbX ^d l)«fclvoiq as fiaorf b otat bQiatae OC^- 

xo sum ed^ a.1 %oioello^ Y^£"^'-0 aa Bnpcf •^lod'irJ'B^a fortiupen sild" odrj 

,SS ^BSsidQ% nO .aelc?eai;8 Bfl aX8«f>lvli)al flee^tiigls dd-lw OO.OOOtOcS. 

oxlJ ai loJoeXIoo Tcdraroo bb bxiod ioxld"onfl o-tni bo'zeiiis fllejiB srl SCf 

eiiJ- iix To;f09lloo bb baod lejrfcfoxiB o*jctl jss'sied'iio eii CC9X ,IX yi>w^^^^ c 
rrtotus ajB ijttBqflioO -^^J-XBifaijO BlcfintfXQD ojctcf lid-lw obXb ,00.000,00$$ lo Mif a 
gnlios stoailLl la e^s^a add" to eXqoo«J edt dt^l ttX d-eopjoA aO 

cfixB^aci ,ei$;J':.0oXri ,^;on/.rol. XllV/ to VJ^^rcoifc^A s'orfSvta exi^ /Isxro-Xiicr bast y^ 



complaint for an accoiinting against the said Herbert 3. Cones as County 
Treasurer of './ill County and ex-officio county collector and the 
sureties on his several respective bonds to recover shortages, mis- 
application of funds and defalcations during his tern of office. 
The complaint consisted of several counts and each prayed for an 
accounting betvij'een the People and the defendants and that a Judgiaent 
be rendered against such of the defendajits for the respective ai:aounts 
duo from each as the account night disclose . Ansvirers, countGr-clalms 
and replies v/ere filed and after the issues had been made up the cause 
was referred to a special master to doternlne v/hether an accounting 
should be had, V/liile the cause was pending before the naster a settle- 
ment was effected by the provisions of which the Casu^ty Company as 
surety paid to the County of '/ill CllOjOCC.OO and S15,OOC.OO additional 
was paid by the individual bondsmen. |i69,226.03, being the araount of 
money tied up in closed banVs, v;as also paid to the County of V/ill and 
these several anoxxnts aggregating ;,, 194, 226.03 vvere to be distributed 
among the various llB talcing bodies lawfully entitled thereto. This 
settlement was duly approved by an appropriate resolution of the County 
Board of Supervisors on November 29, 193S and all the taxing bodies ex- 
cept the Village of Fraiiicfort and the Town of J"ollet thereafter passed 
appropriate resolutions approving the settlement and accepting such 
distributive share as computed by the County Board and executed 
receipts therefor. On January 18, 1939 iVlbert II. ICrusemark, as a 
taxpayer, the said Village of l-'rarikfort and the said Town of Joliet 
were granted leave to intervene ajid their intervening petitions were 
filed on January 20, 1939. On Januai-y 2?, 1939 Columbia Casualty 
Company filed its amendment and supplement to Its ansv/er sotting 
forth that there had been a final settlement of the case pursuant 
to the resolution of the County Board of November 29, 193S and 

2, 



-alia leegBJ-aoila.iovooe'x oJ afcnocf evi^ooqaeu. Ifliavae alri ao aal^eTUJe 

.ootllo lo BX10& aljd aaJtii/fi anoi^JaoXfltefc toe afiiix;! to nol;fBolIqqf; 

CB lol i)QYB^q xloise Bfls 9icw!Qo IxJiovea lo Jbod-aianoo Jni^Iqinoo e&'. 

iaes^bul a J^adi bna Btaabae^Bb f>Ai has elqoe? ellc^ ceov/d-ocf sni Jiix;oooc 

a^-nxroiaB ©TLtoecfS^T fuc^ lot BifntoLnslefc ajlct lo ripua ^eulas^ bet»baei c 

BKifilo-giedfnj-.rcr- .oricftJnif; fd'-tr txiTCoor? cr^:? ss rIOjos moit eul 

-uIJ . a c i»#8P«T ©fft efo^^cf :^.niJi>flsq aaw eauae edc .ted ©rf bluoA 

D3 -^xiA^Pio' ■' ^o anolalvoaq 9iii ^<f l>fi;^oe': 

lBno±;MfiisB 00.000,5X1 bas 00.000,OXX$ XXiv: "io y*«OoO erCcf o* bir 

lo cfmrolxfl ©ri* 3iiietf ,CO.dS;S,^v 5A* y<^ J^-tsq asv; 

£>iia J ii^ajifs^ ^ti4 Ot^ blsci oe.lA ma»r ^3iaa4 beeialo al q. 

bB&adii&^tb ed od" aia?/ C0.dSS,A9X:) s^l^Bseriasa a^nxioos IsTcoTaa t 
exifr .oiteiaiic^ beX^XiJxKs -i^XIn^wfiX aelbo : ai/oltuv srl# s^ioflxa 

^d^m/oO Wi :o8e*c ©#fijtiqo"Tqqa Hm x^ fieToiqqPi "^Xxifi 8£w iti6tml&&e-. 

IJbotf gfllXBd- ori^ XXb ficfl 8C9I \R^ fda^roVl ao aioelv-soqwe lo l)rao 

'"9jfce «»iMi ^iLSoM Y^fii 6'o iitoOirqaioo »>> sxsiia sviitxTcflacl'ai 

. il YiBi-' jqleftei 

^ io la/Gu; jDXz>a eilJ JiCiijxs'i'H: " : tx^a si ' t.. .' 

..^r.._-r, .i. _ -., ^o, .- .- - ^ qjj^jJiX TiO .^C9X , OS ^ISt'CflT f "^ " '' ■ 

.. i*.-.. .•.-.,.- .. .., ^,, ;oXqqr"» "■■ '" "--^ 'rr'."-'-, sJi fJeXJtl .,..,-.— 

>....... ij,;q' sa60 <y.. ■ .w J'lceataXd'd'es ....... ^ .... ^.^..J oieil^f .tarict /iJ-io 



alleging that distribution had been made and accepted by 116 of the 
118 taxing bodies v/hich were entitled to participate in the distribu- 
tion of said fund. In this amended and srippler.iental answer it v/as also 
alleged that this settlement also provided that the county should 
receive all dividends paid out by receivers of closed banfis of public 
monies deposited therein and the seotlement was made also without 
prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff to proceed against said 
Herbert R, Jones personally and averred that the county had executed 
its release -co all sureties on all the bonds of Herbert H. Jones and 
had acknowledged the receipt of its share of the total amount of cash 
received by the coxuity as provided in the settlement resolution of the 
Board of Supervisors. To this ainendraent and supplsnent to the Casualty 
Company's answer the plaintiff filed its replj?" adnitting tlie allega- 
tions as to the settleaient. The Village of Frankfort in its reply 
characterised the settlement as an "atteiapted" one and neither ad- 
mitted nor denied the allegations of its sriended and suppleiviental 
ansY/6r. The Town of Joliet filed no reply. 

On May 22, 1939 the special master filed his report finding that 
the defendants were liable to account and recoirinending that a decree 
be entered to that effect. To this report objections were filed vdaich 
were ovcirruled and aftervi/ai^ds renev/ed as exceptions and upon a, hearing 
had, the chancellor approved the report, overruled ail exceptions 
thereto and on May 22, 1939 re-referred the cause to the special 
master with instructions to proceed to hear further evidence and to state 
the account. Thereafter and on June 7> 1939 the chancellor entered 
an order directing the Casualty Company to pay to the special master 
|1, 793.75 for services rendered by him and to pay to the reporter 
for his services the sum of §1251.11. To reverse these orders snd 
decrees the Goliimbia Casualty Company has appealed and most of the 
individual defendants have joined as co-appellants. 

3. 



-ucfl'irfaiJi ©xiit iii a^fiqloiJ-rtjaq ocf fcaIJ-i*a© ©ney i-^r^Iiiw esjtj&pcf aniia* 8X1 
oaLe SBW tl lewaire Isrf^nsiiiaXqqjja X)IIb fcefiixoiaB ex.' .bmst bins lo nolJ- 

olXtfifq; lo afiiiBd fjseolo "io a^iovioo abnobivlb lla erleoei 

.uOiiiMw oai£ sJ^jBiiJ 9iiiMr tais:elii&a esii &ne nlerteri* bottnoqeb aelnoxc 

f>XBa d-enxBs* X>9©&oiq o;t Itlcfnijalq e r solfiutsiq 

oexe bad vd-ru. ; i>empTs fiiue- xXXAaoaasq aenot .h ^hietfieH 

J&XL6 as: , ; no Qotieijm IIh o& saaeXsi e^l 

-■fsflo lo c^JtIlfOflIB iM^oi 6dt lo ©TBiia sJi lo ^qieoei ©il;f fcesfieXwoxcioa fcsil 

tiifX'ieen da9jaeld:;t©8 ©il* nl l)sblvo^<I as x^avoo eiii ^c6 fcoyjteoai 

X^XsxraaO ©lit ocf d"iibaeXqqi/8 bxtB JTfainfcfleiafl aiilt oT .cioaXvaeqi/S lo bi£.oB. 

.'XXfl ©xi* i^atitflBibB vXc*rc aJi f)©XXl llXd^nljaXq ©xlcr aewaoA a'Yfl«<l^=K>0 

Xqei B&l al d':tol2[nBi^ lo ©g^XXXY eriT ,inBmBl&&eEi Qdi ol ajB aflol^ 

-b& iBidHeo. boB BSto ^fio^qitied'cfa" aa ba !taesaf».litBB exit fcesiieifoflnjEJXlo 

Ija;tii©jra»Xqqjjs taa. bebaBna. aJi lo BGoXd"a3eXI/5 o/l<t A«XceJ» non ted'd'Xja 

•XJ4»^ on ^©Xil it«iXo"& 1© nw' .'jAY/ecB 

-oall cj-rtoqe-: " 

9210 ;>xi js d'arld' siixxj^aiiuoai'u Jiia Jooiooofl OJ" aiUcii siew 20£xjsj3j,-i;o-ioi: exio 

rioixiw I)©xri &tevf saol^tydlcio &iO(i&% aiA& oT .toell© isdJt oi bez&ta& ©tf 

v,nttB3d B jaoqxf .&aB aaoXiJj-qaoxe aa fiaweael afi'iBwnecTlJB fcxiB fceXxnisTo a^ew 

aaold^qeox© XXja beLin.t&yo ,*ioq©T; sdt feevoiqqa loXXaocBXlo &d$ ^bjeui 

loxoaqa ori* oJ- ©axrjBO axld" i>ea:cel©i-9i QCVX ,S^S ybM ho fiiie o&Qiedii 

jbJ"8 od"^nB e«rtQ5xv9i;exld"ijjl aserl ojf f)e©»oiq o;f ano IJounieai rid'Iw lei&Bt^ 

bsioioQ loXlsoasdo ori* ^-C^X ^V bosxI ao boB letilseiedT .cfnwoooi? ©riit 

•rsd-aaia X^ioeqa Bd:t Qi i»q o& Y£C3qiaoi) Y^Xjsi/esO ©d^- aoi^^ailfi t&bio as 

rtsd'Tioqea ©rl;f ci;f y^-^ oi tit::- ntd ^rd bei&busti eaoiv^ea 1.0I ,5V. C^V,-. 

bms Btsbto c . . i^SX^ lo xau« a^rff .aaotv^tja 

p'f* lo jaon Sffs JbfitXsetiqfi fiftrf ^caAqinoO T£;fX5i;aB0 sicfflaLiI ioe^oei) 

.sJitBXXdqqB-oo a© fc«nlot ©vsd staDBXislsfi Laublrlbal 



The evidence fcnmcl in this record discloses and the brief filed 
on behalf of appellee, the sole original plaintiff below, states that 
a valid settlertent of all the issues in this case had been effected 
and that tnis settlement, legallj^ effected, is the end of the case. 
The State's Attorney confesses that the decree of the chancellor is 
erroneous and should be reversed and suggests that this court find that 
the siOEi of 15,737.21 due the Tov/n of Joliet and the siua of ^;67.67 due 
the Tillage of i'rankfor-t be paid by appellant to the present County 
Treasurer of V'/ill County' for and on behalf of these bodies, to be 
withdra%w. by them upon their giving a receipt therefor and that from 
the dividends of closed banlcs the additional sum of $27.35 be paid to 
the ¥illar-e of Frankfort and the additional suia of t-l,?S3.?-0 to the 
Tovm of Joliet. As to the order of June 7th, 1939 directing the 
paj^rient by appellant to the special master of his fees and the fees 
to the reporter the State's Attorney states he is not interested. 

After tho record and tha original briefs had been filed in this 
court, the order of June 7th, 1939 v/as cosplied with and satisfied and 
on March 9, 19-^0 this court upon appellant's notion dismissed its appeal 
so far as the order of Juno 7, 1939 is concerned and agreeable to the 
suggestion of the State's Attorney with reference to the ^i 5,737. 21 
due the Town of Joliet and the |'.67.67 due the Villaflje of Frerifort 
under the terms of the settlement, ai^pellejit did, on March 9, 1940, 
pay those suns to the present county' treasiirer for the benefit of 
these two taxing bodies to be -withdrawn by their, upon dariisnd <and upon. 
giving proper receipts th-refor. This vrps done with the express 
approval of appellee as sho\«m by the stipulation of the parties 
hereto, together v/ith the supplemental abstract of record. 

The interveners Village of Frankfort, .Albert H. Kruseraark and 
Toim of Joliet have not followed this appeal, have not entered any 
appearances in this court or filed any briefs. The only appellee not 

4. 



fg.t?ox*re r:s3-^ ft3.rf oajco r r i al aexfBSJ: amlite^ btlet £ 

... , -.;J-o«tt« -1.: ':t:roe sli1>t tsf.f ft.rf- 

>Tno« 8i/It *Brit &$Qp baai^-fBi etf £Xi;o£8 Jba* emoeao-vm 

ec; jsj* •il-' EHKiT »A^ evt IS.V^Vr^'f ^<3 hub • 

■ciB9iq iiBilev i 

-(0i;M&£iB Gil* iJajB JioliJifliU 1o esoIIiV orid 

iiS-osilB ?C^X ,iW-V 9£Ti;li to isMo eri.- .tloX, lo Jiwol 

BS9t odj ixfiB eesl eJt^l lo ledaLao Xjeioeqa sii;t o;^ a'XLeiX«q<|fl -^d Sn 

.betB&ieict ioa ai eil 88;^>3^8 Y«nsoct;JA a•6;^B*a 9d3' le^toriei: end- od 

eXiii^ ci JbaXXt ceerf fiBxi atel-xd Xsnialic s Jbiooea «di -seJ-lA. 

BrtB lielteld-flB b&B dilv JbeXXqraoe e-w; VC^X fflJ's! -aiitfli "io ^o5t:o eii4 t&rvoc 

Xs©q[qB a;fl beeaiasaife aoi^oai a*itiisXX«?qqje iioqw d-iuoo diili^ O^CX «9 doT[eM cc 

©fid^ o^ oLdBOQtse boB hoanooaw al ?^^X ,V scflt lo •isfciEO sdi' an iBt oe 

XS.VCVi^f ©d* oi ©oxic'.ca'iBT: rtctlw ■^^'io^^A «*»Ji!*8 ©xfj- to rrolJ-sesStfi 

;fiol7£narz:'5 lo esBlXiV exitf ©i/Jb Vd.Td^ ©rfJ- bwa teiXoX lo rwoT erfcf ©uf 

,CU9X ,? dsiBM fl© ,Jb±i) tn-^XXB^qB ,.tii©ic«Xd'^ee - ■" o aime^T arid- To&ai; 

lo *Xl«fl»d axid- lol TQTUJBBe'X''" •^'-'■.'^t? ^nese-j,. ..,_.^ ^cJ- ^aum aaorid' v''^ 

--,,, hoji bajin!»b aoqn cieil* ^tf rr.,. . . ... acf oJ' eelfjod 5,alx»d' ow;t ae!»:.. 

aojiiisq arijf "io aoXcfsXixqid'a; G/fit -^ ayrods es deXX^qoB 16 XsToigqf 

.Moos- Ic .tOET.tsdB XBd-jKsmsXqqjis aria- si:ftyt •x&A^9^oi (OCfoiex 

lifis 3tiB5ieaj . tT:ol2£rLS'll to ©ssXXXY BiQiievied^iii; ©iIT 

\pa be^eiao &oa sTfiii ,Xeoq(jB aixtd- bemoMot foa ev/irf irjlXot lo nvro!! 

croii seXXeqqB yXiiQ ©ilT .eleX'xiJ tjxlb feeXll: io tfnyoo elricf ni aeoxiBiBeqqf 

.A 



in default confesses that the decree appealed from should be reversed. 
The only two taxing bodies interested ^fyhi-jh v/ere not ezprossly satis- 
fied v;lth the settlement and which had not accepted the benefits thereof 
have acquiesced therein hj failing to follow the appeal to this court. 
Evidently there is no desire on the part of anyone to further engage 
in this liti^:,ation and as stated by counsel for all the parties appear- 
ing in this court, there is no occasion for further proceedings in 
this case. The order aj;id decree of Mcv 22, 1939 as a^ja.inst everyone 
to this record other than lierbert R. Jones is therefore reversed. 

DECS2S PJrVSRSSD. 



.X>eei9v©rt oa bU' ,tBb at 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, ] 

SECOND DiSTKiCT ] ' I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this . . day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



ClerJc of the Appellate Court 



y// 



AT A T3Ri: OF TiiZ APPZLLAT.:] COURT, 

Begun and held at Ottav/a, on Tuesday", the 7th day of Hay, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 

Present -- The Hon. FRUD G. '/OLPjI, Presiding Justice 
Hon. BL;.IITE liUFPIl'J^ Justice 
Hon. FR/iiH'XII' R. 'DGYIH, Justice 

JUSTUS L. JO-.isoiT, Glen. Qr|fry/i A Q A^ 

S. J. ^'SJ.TSR. Sheriff OV D 1 .R* ^ O^ 



BS IT REKSIIBSRED, that afterv/ards, to-v/it: On fiVf 1'' 1G40 
the Opinion of the Court \/as filed in the Cleric's Office of 
said Court, in the v/ords and figures follov/ing, viz: 



ixo/ixIIT "i-o £5fctjB.t d-oxiJexu j3nope8 srict 701 Jbits nxricfxv; 



I;"' "p'Orf.: .' ' I r.:. .joLr: p;'"'/ -I'l'sco ■■'■ni. to noi^\L'"J o;i; 



C-5II. IIP. 9511 



x\GSin)A 110. 8 



IS 1513 
Ai^PSLLATE COURT OF ILLDIOI 



February Tfm, AMD, 194(^ 





JSSSE P. m.YDlSl^, 



vs. 



IPPEAL fRO|f THE &iCUIT 
CCfURT OF KANKAKEE COlMT. 



FRED H. BREDETSIER a/id ELSIE 
BREDEi^IER, 

Appellants. 



DOVE, J, 

On December 21st, 1937 Jesse P, Hayden filed Ms coiaplaint 
and cognovit in the Circuit Court of Kanicalcee County and recovered 
a judgment by con-fession that day against the defendants Fred n, 
Bredemeier and Elsie Bredemeier for v2655.00. Thereafter and on 
January 3rd, 193S the defendants filed their notion supported by 
the affidavits of the defendants to open up the Judgment and for 
leave to plead. These affidavits v;ere, on motion of the plaintiff, 
stricken. Si-ibsequently, by leave of coux-t, an amended affidavit 
was filed to which was attached a copy of an instrtunent signed by 
the plaintiff and dated July 23, 193>t and addressed to ^ohn Krueger, 
Secretary-Treasurer of the Federal Land Bank and to the Land Bank 
CoEimissioner of at. Louis, hereinafter referred to. The trial court 
again sustained the motion of the plaintiff to strike the affidavit 
as amended, denied the motion of the defendants to open up the 
judgment and for leave to plead and directed that the judgment 
rendered on December 21, 1937 stand in full force and effect. From these 
orders the defendants have perfected this ajjpeal. 



'.'0 aTA^. 



\ 



H^T <■'■':: »" 



Aeq*.!, 



\a6i\9c{*.!A 



I ( aiajs JbJ^ 5'. . nt 




.<! laast 



.?,v 



.1- ,svoa 

,H .tei^ ad-aj8i>£ieleJb ©;!;>• tajfxxr:.,i: \>;b d-Bil^f noiaaetiioo ^tf ^xionir^.-oiri, ;' 

,ttl&nlBlq edit to colJ'fjm xig ,eie\T BC^lvefelttjB ©sexIT .i)B3lq od- avseX 

^idsa IixibJ ©ricf o* fms ::<nfla J&flsJ iBfltftfief «i- xirgjBcxS'-Y^fld'artOfltS 

J-%iroo Lalii ©dT ,od- .'^fTfet©^ ^»*tf»?Tfert*il .elsroJ ».t8 to 'xeaoJtaaixasooO 

d^.tvB.ft.tt1tfi »rf# Bill' ■ bansBi&uB aia^B 

i !;iBf)fls'Jr9i) 8x1* lo flolcfc . jaJ^xidan 8b 

•litdjcaafiij't ad* iadi S>94iyozih bsm bBi&lq o* evtol 'lol baR iasrzsibal 

yd* cioi'i .*09ll9 Ms eo^ot Jtiiit nx fixtfi. jIS necfHteoeC. no Jboiobxie^ 

.IseqQA alri* I)e*oelieq ©vsri ad-flfiJinelefi sri* eial^io 



The anended affidavit of the defendant i'red K. Bredeneier 
states that on or about June l6, 1931!^ the defendants were indebted 
to the plaintiff in the sum of i'20,410.00 and accrued interest; 
that at that time they were also indebted to John Lleldt in the sum 
of 11,000.00 and to F. J. Cloidt in the sum of v210C.OO; that in 
the Spring of 1934 at the reqiiest of the plaintiff the defendants 
applied to The ^Federal Land Bank of St. Louis and to the Land 
Bank Commissioner for loans to be secured by mortgages on certain 
real estate o^»vned by the defendants; that loans were granted the 
defendants aggregating #15,700.00; that on July 23, 1934 each of 
the said creditors of the defendants, including the plaintiff, 
agreed to scale dov/n the indebtedness due them from the defendants 
and accept a smaller sum in full satisfaction of their claims 
against the defendants; that John lleldt agreed to accept 4800.00 
in full satisfaction of defendants' indebtedness to him; that said 
F. J. Cloidt agreed to accept the sum of ClSOCOO in full satis- 
faction of defendants' indebtedness to him and the plaintiff agreed 
to accept in full satisfaction of defendants' indebtedness to him 
the sum of $12,500.00 on or before August 1, 1934, or if paid 
thereafter to accept said s\m of |12, 500,00 together with 6% 
interest thereon from August 1, 1934 to the date of payment. The 
affidavit then states that the plaintiff agreed that when said sum 
of $12,500.00 and 6% interest from August 1st, 1934 was paid to him 
that all his claims against the defendants would be paid and satis- 
fied in full. The affidavit then recites that thereafter said loans 
were obtained from The Federal Land Bank and the Land Bank Commissioner 
and that each of said creditors, including the plaintiff, was paid 
the respective amounts so agreed by them to be recoived by them in 
full satisfaction of their respective claims against the defendants; 

2. 



•xolemebtnE ,K b9's /BblttM bebadma ©xIT 

bBtdebal 919V iioBbao'iob ?■'■ . Vr cai'T. d-jfocfB no xio &nsii bv^SbAb 

l&zQTQias. J5«irioo« ilid-nielq oAi oi 

CT's er!.t xii tbi9^ rfi<oT> .=, Ip srrw'^ ysi.K* etalct ^.pxlc^ cffl J'flil* 

.rid- J 00, . . jbrus 00.000tl<^ 1:o 

aI«d'n©o no e»8f'8^^<5w Y<f be'i;/o«a «cf oJ- ac'i?oI tol lenoJteelrtrnoO HiuaS. 

!c /loss .^f,vX ,CS \:.Cxri: no .Jfirict ;06.00^ ttBgeissfi nia£>: 

i^ii^alBlq ads aaJtJb^Ioiil ,«d-jiflJf octibe'i;. 1i^ 

iiBbixs'xe 
blti& Jaiij" aa9iii)©gd&fjiii 'ad'aaJKielei ' i'^slax^^j^ 

-aliua Llifi nl OQ.QOBLt lo msm 9di iq9t>t)& q4 ixie'ras SbloLZ . 
b90iSj3 I'ii^nJtfiXii 9d& baa ■99ab9t(S9bJxl ' a^tcaficslefc lo aol'io&t 

.1.0' 00. 00?, Si,;- "10 x^B Siicr 

r^/; -laaja^o.T o'v'. ut'.-^ .;■. .ij. lo iX'B jajtBa d"qe0OB od" i»cftfler[©ild" 

'jK- . o , .r?i.i\(;jBq lo Qd^Bib ©il«t oit O^C^X ,X cfeirB^A jooi^ ooeiexi^ taQietni 

-ald"Ba baB btati eo ....,->.. .:_.... .....^,..„ ._ ,. . ;^anX«SB a^'- -— --— 

enfioX bl&6 rs.9&tA9i9Sii iadt aeiiOBi neAi UrBbtttA exl. ._ 1 ai JieiT: 

lonoXBaJtiflfiioO :jirr3? ^^rrcj erf;?' trcB sIcbS boAui Lr,i&b6% edU moi't bealf^^^dio ohqvt 

btsci £ i!T.lbtT.lvat <a'iod'*f!oio f tr," lo dsBf 



that at no time between July 23, 1934 and Au^^ust 15, 1934, the 
date of said alleged note which forras the basis of this suit, 
did the defendants or either of thorn receive any laoney or any 
other thing of value from the plaintiff; tlmt the note sued upon 
is wholly v/ithout any good or valuable consideration; that the 
plaintiff, on August 15, 1934, the alleged date of the alleged 
execution and deliver^'' of said note, did not part v/ith any con- 
sideration or anything of value and that neither of the defendants 
received any consideration of any kind or anything of value on 
account of the alleged execution and delivery of said note and 
that no one for thera or for either of thera received any such 
consideration; that each of the foregoing statements is true in 
substance and in fact; that each fftatement ia made on the personal 
knowledge of affiant and that if sv/orn as a vdtness in this ease 
affiant can so testify. The instnuaent dated July 23, 1934, above 
referred to, the authenticity of which is verified by the affidavit 
of the defendant Fred H. Bredeneier is as follows: 

'•GREDITOH'S STATSHlEra OF IlTDSBTEDITSvSS AI'TD 
AOTHORITY EOR PAH/QSNT. 

Application No. 107679 II. F. L. A. or L. C. No. 
Applicant Fred liredemeier 

To Jesse B. Haydon Momence, Illinois, July 23rd, 1934 
Monence, Illinois 

"You hold a mortgage as an obligation of i^red Brede- 
meier, Momence, 111. for ;;:17,000.00. landly state below 

3,410.00 
the earliest date said indebtedness can be paid, giving 
the amount v/hich you will accept in full satisfaction 
of the sane on or before said date, or thereafter, and 
return this statement to me. 

(signed) 

Secretary-Treasurer or 
Loan Correspondent. 
To John ICPueger 

Secretary-Treasurer or Loan Cor- Date July 23rd, 1934 
respondent and to the Federal 
Land Bank of 3t, Louis and/or 
Land Bank Goiaraissioner . 

"The amount of the indebtedness referred to above is 

17,000.00 2^3 unpaid principal and ^^^^'9,1 unpaid in- 
3,410.00 "^i"^-^ i'^ y 300.90 -^ 

terest up to the l6th day of June, 1934, upon which 
date or after which date said debt can be paid. Said 



Bit: 



olxiw 9tc>a fc«^s*^ '■ '^o 9*B^ 

'BlmotBli Bdi bib 







/isTilt cjjjoazo 56^el.i.£ oiJ lo Jtm/ooo* 


:~ -.'c. 




i>Tc morld .joI: lo uierlir tqI ec'. 


ni ■-;-■ 




''" :p,aXc-_,f. 'io xtosa ^b;^."^ ; ' ■ -i-^^i-i-jioo 


Ij8aO©il.€.v ■: 




leiaet *b c . „ ^ . + . ._ =;. :- cxusi-e d ira 


esBO eii! 




' ^^ow^, . j'^lelnQtaL 


©vodij . sro 




■■,:^r(:!'-.iT. ■ , ••) +r,';t-'\-yn 


JiVi^f; '^T- 




. -■• .. C-" _.,..„_ ^ 




: -^WO 


IIol: .c'Lsjis £>£••' . iiiijftne'S^f) ©rf* la 



•XIX ,©onomoM 

-atsiEi 5eil lo nold-BsiXtfo as bs osBgd-TOia 
woIsoT ed'Bi'e x«ti^ii-tH' .OO.ODO^VXv " " •''■ ,"o i.-no.v .Texoa 

aolc ..t 



Afex ,.&^ts ^£m^ 






. Acuoxatii 



3a f^xuM. 






Indebtedness is evidenced by a mortgage due on the 1st day 
of JTarch, 19LL, The debt is secured by a real estate mort- 
gage v;hioii is recorded in book 377 page 335 of the records 

400 157 
of Kankakee County, State of Illinois. Upon pajriaent to the 
undersigned of ii:12, 500.00 on or before the 1st day of August, 
1934, or if paid thereafter, by including interest at the 
rate of 6 per centum per annum on .$12,500.00 froro said date 
to the date of payment said sun will be accepted in txHl 
satisfaction of this claim. 

"In connection with any loan or loans that may be made 
by the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis and/or the Land Bank 
Ccmmissloner to the above-named applicant, it is further 
agreed that said sum may be paid in Federal Farm Mortgase 
Corporation bonds of the last issue preceding the date the 
proceeds of the loan are disbursed, fully and unconditionally 
guaranteed both as to principal and interest by the '^nited 
States. It is understood that such bonds will be accepted 
in pa37ment at their face value with any necessary/ adjustments 
for interest accrued to the date of pajnjient. It" is also 
understood that such bonds are issued in denominations of not 
less than $100.00 and that any necessary adjustments between 
the amount of this claim and the nearest amount it is possible 
to disburse in bonds on the basis of par plus accrued interest 
will be paid in cash by the Bank. 

"The undersigned creditor further agrees that directly 
or indirectly no note, mortgage or other consideration will 
be received from the debtor, incident to such acceptance, 
other then the consideration paid by The Federal Land Bank 
and/or the Land Bani: Commissioner, and that when said consi- 
deration is paid all claims of this creditor against the 
above-named debtor will have been satisfied in full. No 
person, firm or oorcoration other than the undersigned is 
the o^Tuer of anj'' interest in said indebtedness. 

"jUI papers evidencing this indebtedness, properly 
cancelled, and vdth proper release, v.411 be delivered to 
the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis and/or the Land Bank 
Commissioner in exchange for a copy of Order for i3hipment 
of Bonds, and a check of the Federal Land Bank of St. Louis 
in payment of any necessary adjustment, according to the 
terms stated. 

"Said bonds should be shipped for deliverj"- to and for 
the account of the undersigned, to Parish Bank & Trust 
Company, Momence, Illinois, which is hereb;^ designated as 
the agent of the undersigned to accept delivery for it and 
on its behalf. 

(Signed) Jesse B. Hayden" 

It will be noted that the araended affidavit in support of 

the motion to open up this judgment does not state when, where 

or tinder what circumstances the note which forms the basis of 

this suit was executed. Nor does the affidavit make any reference 

4. 



vgh .+«! acii no ©wB eneniicaii b yd fisortsAlvs al ^s^sxbeidobal 

ooen al r/oJ; 
.III to ©d-sjfB .itfttiioO ■::o 






>tf XBm io aBO ' 



a jr. 



XIlv. .^ 



ax i)ei.-^.i.i; -ti^',: 



J. : 
Giuc„ .... .., _.- _ .. -.-- .^ - . - 

not hxiB o^ 
©i».1w ,iis£fw »#j3d"8 d"oa asod .tngiEci^fijjt pi^* <IJy fl9t_ 



to the note as having been executed, by the defendants to the 
plaintiff as eTidence of any part of their original indebtedness 
to him. It does not appear from cinytliing stated in the auiended 
affidavit that the note sued on has any connection whatever with 
the indebtedness referred to in the instrn.ment of July 23, 1934 
executed by appellee and directed to The Federal Land Bank and 
the Land Bank Commissioner. What does appear frora the affidavit 
is that the defendants on June 16, 1934 o^ved the plaintiff 
#20,410,00 and interest, that the plaintiff thereafter and on 
July 23, 1934 agreed to scale this indebtedness down to 
|12, 500.00 and accept this s-om in full satisfaction of defendants' 
indebtedness to hiui, and that t:ii3 sum of ^12,500.00 was paid to 
the plaintiff in accordance with that agreement. The affidavit 
then states that at no ttmo between July 23, 1934, •'^'-nd AUf^ust 15, 
1934, the date of the note v;hich forms the basis of this suit, 
did either of the defendants receive any consideration or anything 
of value from the plaintiff, nor did anyone for thorn or either of 
them receive anything or any consideration from the plaintiff on 
account of the execution of the note upon vA'.ich the wsuit is brousht. 

In Parent Ivlfg. Co. v. Oil Products Co., 246 111. App. 222 
there was a motion made to sat aside a judgment by confession and 
grant the defendant an opportunitj'- to plead. The affidavit stated 
that no consideration in law or in fact was given for the notes 
upon which Judgment had been talcen and that there was an absence 
of consideration and the court held the affidavit insufficient 
because it did not state any facts but only conclusions of the 
pleader. In the instant case there is uothing stated in the affi- 
davit to the effect that the note su.ed on had any connection 

5. 






'e>Ji 



jivB; 



■sn^a^^v 



^1 lax-a aider jTtieoot i>UB 00, 001 ^Sil^ 



to ierId"lo 10 r 
no "itxtftl 

sss . 

Jb9.tpc^e -J 






i'i£iyia...Oi 



.1-;- 0':',5'Xj:, 



-"■/iiJ 



i.UV)./ .tw 



QonendB m 8i»w f'i«rf# ia&^ box. asSet ,u©»d J&bxI i^axm^bisl doI4w nocii/ 
ari* to eiioiaulonoo t-tno t.:r<f atoet -Yius sS'^^e d'Oii Bl.t ^i ©awjaoecf 



xvhatever with the indebtedness referred to in the instnuient 
dated July 23, 1934. If the note sued on did have any connection 
v.'ith that indebtedness it v^s certainly incunbent upon the defen- 
dant or one of them to set forth that fact .and to set forth the 
circumstances under "v*.lch they executed this note and hovr it 
happened to come into the hands of the plaintiff and hov/ and why 
it was sli^:ned and dsllYored to the plaintiff, and if it had any 
connection with the instr-uraent of July 23, 1934- or the indebted- 
ness therein mentioned of the defendants to the plaintiff, those 
facts should appear. This was not done. The only facts that 
are stated are in connection with the indebtedness of the dcfen- 
dejits to the plaintiff as set forth in the instruuient of July 23, 
1934, Elinj.nating those facts, inasmuch as thoy are not shown 
to have any connection with the execution of the note sued on, 
there remains nothing but conclusions of the pleader. In our 
opinion the trial court did not arr in holding the amended affi- 
davit insufficient. 

Appellee has assij^ned as a cross error the action of the 
trial court in permitting appellants to amend their notion by 
filing a copy of the instrument of July 23, 1934. The court 
permitted this to bG done upon the same day appellants' motion 
to open up the judgmeut was heard by the trial court. The 
record discloses, hov/ever, that the amendm.ent v/as made by leave 
of court and under our liberal statute on amendments, the trial 
court did not err in permitting this aiaendment to be made. The 
orders appealed from will be affirmed. 

ORDERS AFFIRltED. 



fiol^aeimoo -^xus erBil filfi no Bsua esoa erf.' "" ."Cfl ,CS x^^^ btiieb 
^xlJ^ d;>-iol d-oa ot laa *o«t +• "■" ■■-io^ jn:- u; I'lerf* lo ©rrn 10 d-at^b 

fleoil^ 4 . _ . . . , - •. _ _ ;?! ^.0 

cJ-sdt ??r)?:^ ^Ind scff .©aoB Jon «s/%w etxf:? l . :>'-!l 

,CS xLvl to #-fl«riu:nt*9Xil Sil;f rrl xftrrot ^98 aa ttld-filBl*? ©If.t c-i ai^/tBft 

tttc , >o anolBi/rorroo ^trcf T>ntf{io« altt«^T9^' stftK* 

'• fefirtsflip '- blod ill 

0£l* lo -ri,t ^oiie eeor • ©elXftii 

Ycf floltoin 'xlexit hsmsza o& B&asllc i&hmtq at iiuoo lBti& 

tirj-oo eilT ,AC^X "jCS xhsX lo *a:wMf*tj-Bjtii o.«* to X' ■ 

110 1' (JbI) ©laee eAi aoq rs omb fttf o* 8iil3' &?i9^tsn9r: 

9VB9I x^ obsta amv liam^ibueB^: ii' ^levowo/i ^aeaoXoaii) fticoei 

iBJtrtS eM ^ad-aexsJbfle- 'auoo to 

■.:siIiu.QZi& eixlJ" gxUJJi.rxo.' 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

SECOND DISTRICT J I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my ofnce. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this , . day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty-. 



Clerk of the Appellate Court 



AT A T3HIi OF TinC APP^LAT^ COURT, 

Begun and held at Ottav/a, on Tuesday, the 7th iaj of Hay, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 



Present -- The Hon. FRLD G. '.'OLPF, Presiding Justice 
Hon. BL;.IITS TiUFPn'J^, Justice 
Hon. FILUTrXIl' R. DOV?];, Justice 
JUSTUS L. JOI^TSOIT, Clerk 
S. J. \'ST.T:]]R, Sheriff 



BE IT RSrSHBERED, that afterv/ards, to-v/it: On .. „v, . - ,■,,.-,' 
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Cleric's Office of 
said Court, in the v;ords and fi^^ures following, viz; 



^UOO :T. '0 I'JTTT A T.\ 



" lOl bflB XTXii^XVV 

aoiiBU 'I JTTtL'vJa .•-.oil 

; -,.,T T 
- ^ • - ■-•■■■■ " 



li'i a5u cfitroO eri* to nolnlqO cjU 



G3Iu ITQ. 9518 



AGI3UDA KO. 11 



RISA E. STRAM'J, 



vs. 




IK TEE ^^^' 

SECOl^ DISTRICT ^■ 



Appellee, 




■bniary Tom, -f*-^* W^^' 
f 





APPIAL FROM TITii; CIRCUIT 
COURT Oj? PEORIA comrTi. 



BRADLEY POLYTECmfIC INSTITUTE, 
a Corpora oion, 

Apt) ell ant . 



DOTS, J. 

At the time of lils death In July, 1936 and for several years 
prior thsreto, George fi. LlaoClyment was treasurer of Bradley Poly- 
technic Institute located in Peoria and as such ex officio husiness 
manager of the Institute and business officer and secretary of its 
hoard of trustees. By its charter and by-laws it was his duty to 
see that all the rules and regulations prescribed by the board for 
the governinent of the business affairs of the Institute vver<3 faith- 
fully observed and among his other duties he v/as re^iuired to take 
the initiative in seeking investraants for its funds and \7as res- 
ponsible for the faithful execution of all contracts laade v/ith the 
Institute. The by-laws also provided tiiat he should collect and 
receive all fees and moneys from any source due to the Institute, 
make a permanent record thereof and deposit tho saiie in an appro- 
priate bank account and was required to exercise general supervi- 
sion over all acts of all officers and eciployees having to do v/ith 



IX .'..:. ./cr"^"-'' ?^r?9 ,0T' ^tflyr^ 



.f ,£^*l':'T Y^^;nrf(^ 



V 



,ooXIt 

( V .8^ 

. ^jXXeqqA 



-xXo^ X&ltBtB. .o ■:.f^-.rti^:'i.7 y/sw ojcreiff^XOosM .J* o^ioeCi ^od'erteil* '/oinq 

Bctx lo -^ciBiteuoaa l3fl£ leolltlo seexilawrf" fcor. od^ud-lJisnl erid^ 1o nesflUfliii 

o& x^Ub alxl mw d^i awsX-x^ JE>«* lodruBifo adi yfi .eeedemd ^o Jbisocf 

lot bi6o<S Bdi Tfrf £»MtX*£i>Bettq BfloldAXxyssn: boB a»Xire ©ifd^ XXb cfflxlJ- eee 

-xld-iflt ©lew edi/^li-anl sif* to artiBtts aea/ilairrf arid lo cTxieniirisvor? eri* 

o-Aet oi f)9ilupet 6£W 6il eettab iBd&o e.lii ^nonus 6eb ibeinsedo yilLsfi 

-3S1 efiv.- Jbxii3 stm/l sdl lol adnexad'sevnl j^nXirieaQ xii evl.tBl^i«x ©rid 

e£lo xld-iw ©JEiBfii ad-osncJ-noo XIb lo xxolcfiioexa XwliJdJtBl eat not ©XdXanoq 

J&as dosIXoo fcXirorfa ©rf ijadi' l)8f)lvortq oaXs ev;^!-^^ eriT .odx/J-.rJ'enl 

,e*y#idsfll e. o fioiuoe •sfxia jaoil ax^^of^ ^^ifi eoel ILs ©-visooi 

-o'lqqB ££B bL ©iEf t-ioqeS fiiis lo©i©/I^ fcTCoJoen d-flsnaimsq s tfjijoi 

-xTTieqj/a iBieao^ ©aloisz© od fienXwpei: aew ba& &aiioi>OB sktsd ©dBliq 

xtd'lw of) od anlvBil asQYoXqice f)njs a^iaoi'i'io XIb to sdOfi lis levo nola 



tho receipt or disbursement of funds and securities of the Institute 
and to exarrLine all clatras against tlie Institute and no ijioney could 
be dravm unless the amount had been adjusted and settled by him. 
The by-laws also reajxired him as secretary and business manager to 
give a bond in favor of the trustees for the faithful performance 
of his duties in the 3->im of at least |40,000.00, the preBiliim therefor 
to be paid by the Institute. 

On January 10, 1929 Fdsa S. Strai-vn was the owmev of a snail 
farm in Pecria County, where she and her husfeand lived, end on that 
day they executed and delivered to the Bradley Polytechnic Institute 
their pi-oraissory note for |;3>000, 00 due five years after date with 
6'^ interest, payable semi-annuallir, ajid secured its payaant by 
executing a mortgage upon said preralses. On February 3» 1934 3isa 
E. Strawn paid >;>500,00 upon the principal sun and on January 14, 
1935 J v37.06 vjas paid so thst according; to the records of the 
Institute there v;es due on July 24, 1935 principal and interest 
the suri of ■:;.'?26l7 . 31 . Prior to this time Ivlr. MacClyment, acting for 
and on behalf of said Institute, made several trips to the home of 
Ih's. Strav/n and urged her to pay the a^uount due and advised her that 
if it was not paid foreclosure proceedings would be instituted. In 
addition to the mortgage held by the Institute, there was a second 
mortgage upon the Strawn premises held by a Ivlrs. Blair. I'lr. Mac 
Glyraent knew of this fact and he contacted Jirs. Anna 'j/estlake, an 
elderly lady, whose husband, before nis death, had been a raejaber of 
the faculty of the Institute. Hr. MaoClyment informed her that the 
Institute held a small loan and that tne borrower v/anted more money 
and upon his representations to her she gave him, on July 2, 1935 » 
her check for .-;5,002.00, the check indicating that sf5^'^'-'»*^*-' ''^^^ ^°^ 

2. 



©oaBCTiotTceq lultilcfxjbl aiirf- lol ea. ' ■ " - - fcaacf b ©via 

iy is'iorl-.!' .ffiniias-aq ^ ■^ " "" . ■'''-' m,j *.)'. aaliirfi aid' lo 

a.^..,.,o .. .. -.^ .. ... . .,.. :...,. ....... .- ..v.ri55 PS^I ,01 ■^r£Oi;it«.T^ 

cTsxId- CO hi'ca ,f>©vll AxuBcfaxjri lerl f).aij ©rift- •isdv; ,xd'iiifO?5 Alios. 

9cri;;ti*f=!r[I olM&^^J^Xo'i ire/.5<5rtfl arlJ- od" fiensTlXel) bus bo^DOexB x^^^ XBb 
ilJ.cr eiab let^s^ eiaex evlt et/* 00. 000, C:^ lol c*:?;' TicsR-Tncicr ilo'nt 
T/j Jtasmz&ci ail f>ai.i;o«a fiojss ^xl^oaitB-^-' 

.uswfljsX ao 6xiB fflB-a Ioqic».alic[ djdit noffrc OC . , 
e/fct ^o a5i098'i afii o^t •a.oJ;^io'>o'* i\ Isq w*mr ^0-. .'I 

&Q@t9iaL X>flB I»fTloalT 3iit a^tiri^litsinl 

■3301 sfliJofi ,*noMY.' ««1# tiil'if od- ioli«i .XCAXdSl lo axm odd- 

to 9.11'. :. 8qli>+ X.'5a®vod ':Xjsdacf ao fiixo 

d-Siid- led fcoexTfiB Jbaa •Jtf6 d-mfOiBis Qdt x&q Qi tod l>9':<i'n; bOB o/fBT-i ■ 
nX .fi^d-i/dldfefli: so .;'990oiq ©axjaoXoeiol i)lB:T J-oa a&x 

haoo&B 3 SKW oiariJ ^a^liSJiiSBal «d^ Y'- l>Xod a^^siioxa si: '.-is.t.bB 

cifllSt .iM .liflXQ .am JB ^d AXed a^aXraoiq xi^ttld'S sdd' xroqir oajsgd-iaa 
XLK ,©>ix3l.1-p,©i> (511; . ia^OiiJ'floo ad i&ns if©*! eJtdl'.lO weiEf ineiff^XO 
lo ladiTieia £ nd»cl i>jsd ,uifijel» aid -©lolecf ,fiiisdsifd taodw «yJ5bX Y-t's^Jb-te 
edcJ-.d'isddf tad ibearcotni d^iieis^XOo*!'; . . tuvld-u: .o TjcfXi/OBl »d* 

XBitota. Giicm b&^jmv ^•w- luti aaoX XXjo^iSju ;; liXed ed-jard-l^eial 

,?C9I :i= yXxtV e© . od- acol.tfldrf©a»^q©i eld fcor 



tiie StraYrn loan and the additional .32.00 for anotla?!- purpose. 
A siiort time tiiereafter &» MacGlyment advised lies, Stravm that 
he tad procured soineono ^^ho v;ac '..'illing to lean upon her preiiises 
a sufficisnt tuaount to pay off both the first and second mortgages 
and requested her to rioet him at his office in the Institute on 
July 2U, 1935 and ezccute a new note and morogage and that at that 
time the laortgages then on her property v;ould he rcloaced. On 
J\ily 24, 1935 r;lsa K. ytravm, accorupanied by her sen John S. 
Straiim and his v;ifs ^ iaude iS. Strai'.Ti, vrent to the office of Mao 
Clyiisnt in the Institute office building; and v;hlla there they 
executed thoir note for V'5,025.00, payable to the order of John R, 
nacClycient, Trustee, said suti payable in installments the final 
installncnt fallinc due on Jiilj'" 2^, IS"* 40, To secure the pajiaent 
of this note they executed their trust deed, by vrhich they 
nortgaged and vmrrantcd the pre:iuises to George H. MacOlyment, 
Trustee, and also executed and doliverod to him an assigninent of 
a certificate evidencing that llrs. StravTn had a one-sixth interest 
in ViThat was laiovra as the Scovell and Cielke Trust. In return for 
these Instrunents, MacClyment delivered to the Stravms a release 
of the 31alr second Kortga^e and in answer to their request for 
the release of the Institute niortgage, llaoClyEent stated that he 
was hnsy bizt that he world execute a release within the next daj?" 
or so and would bring it to their hoirie or telephone then to come in 
and get It. IlacClyuent further stated that the proceeds of the 
new note Vsrei-e raore than sufficient to discharge the principal and 
accrued interest upon the Institute and Blair mortgages and that 
there \^ould be a snail anount left, which ho v/ould either pay the 
Strawns in caMi or apply it upon the interest due at the end of 
the first year. Shortly thereafter MacClyment delivered to Anna 

3. 



..ftslifis-xcr lorl 1:0; alXItv asw ox*r ©wo^jaoe SiQiisoo%q_ i>Ad ©ri 

't -tf vtfiil^ toB agsjicJrrc'- '^'-" "toii w»/i a ©li-tfo^xa Ana §?QX ,.^S if-twt 

•:■'-■'-- -■■■ f^ ' ■■ ■ ■ ".'::[ ao neC.:^ r.-^... ^ ■—.■-■ . ^.kj- etsl^ 
., ,, ,. ,..., ^^.. :. ., ."VXitt^^ ..'- .--^ .■_ ^ ,T-.^ x^^ 

to ctitoajn^iasft ka Alii od^ £>©i&v. i>e;^yo^ Bi^sffH 

10I misSfi-x nl .tfairr'i' ©iXs-O lixtB . iX»T0oe w .^iwiw ai 

saaoloi ,<•■ a-Avi?;^c!-C »iii oi bo-x^rJilob iaewiXOotM .ed-iienxyu/^xti ^aactJ- 
lot #eejfcp©'i tisjtlc!' p-^ lawewB ai :'r^cm 5jidooia uisjai 

Oxl dsrid fco;^^;re OEli ,oSiii3JioAi ©d-i/^fld-QaJ ^sit to ov,»eL9% BUS 

-{&£)■ iTon. 9d.i ti.ts'.itx.r' &a&9L9i a ©ifuoexsj :j.' aw 

»SLi %0 SX>96 OC ,J3ii^^ iJSuiJviJ %&ii^'XUt »iai>SS£S^l >i;a iiiiiS 

£)Xis XjgqlOftX-.f- ,;miiOBtb o^ /yxr 

o;icf "ijiq rterid-ie iiXi/ow s>fi lioiilw ,,fi6X d-mrcuuci J.lj;i:uc ' oitcr 

BHC/i ct henoyXXei) d-naniYXOonK ledl'r.ea-eilJ- ^Icf 7.oxI£ «ifl9Y bail's: ©ild" 



•rt'estlalce said note for .|5,025.00 and tlie tinist deed securing the 
same, together with the said certificate evidencing the Interest 
of Lli'S. Stra^Am in the Scovell ?iid Gelire trust. On AUfjast 6, 1935 
this trust deed was filed for record and IviacGlyiaent , upon the 
stationery of the Bradley Polj'-technic Institute -".vrote ili's. Westlake, 
advising her that the note vvhich she held was a first laortgage note 
secured by a first lion upon the preidses of Hisa -. Strawn. There- 
after John S. StraviTi called at the office of I-IacGlyraent several 
times for the purpose of procuring the note and laox'tgage hold by 
the Institute and the release of the sajie, out i.iacClyjaent raade 
various excuses. On ilovembor IS, 1935 on the letterhead of the 
Institute, i-^acClyraent v/rote arid delivered to John 2, 3tra7.ii the 
following: 

"BRADLEY FOLTHF^CIIMIG II^STITUTE 
PSORIA, IJ.LIi70IS 

liovexdber loth, 1935. 
Office of the Business Ivlanager. 

llrs. Hisa E. Strawn, 
lianiia City, Illinois. 

Dear Jvlrs, Stravm:- 

Ily association with your mortgage matter 
v/as to assist you in xhe refinauclnt?; of the first 
and second m.ortf^ages for which your Ilanna City, 
111. property v;as secured prior to July 24, 1935. 

July 24th, 1935 a raortgage was given to 
me as Tinastee in the amount of t'5025.00. It was 
payable in nine oonseciitive seini-ajiiiual iD.stall- 
ments of ^.125. each beginning April 24, 1936, and 
the remainder payable July r.4, 194^^. ix"ivii3£e 
given to pay all or any portion prior to due dates. 
Interest at the rate of 55/5 PQ^ annaoi, pay'-ible 
semi -annually, the first installment being due 
Jtui. 24, 1936. 

4. 



'!cc:j , biooet lot bsltl £b«: boeb isjni alxi.- 

eion ■fii'. scieiTbB 

eSe J-i/i'id-aaX ert;J^ 

edj' - rxaviXei- bm. dJoiw iiiJjur^XQjjBii, aiwi^i ^snl 

: 'HaiwoXXo'i 



,1^01 ^dit 






euL ■'.:Li^,ci &LienlSjiiaai cfe-sil axfcT 



The security is the hone property at 
Hanna City and the assigned trust certificate 
for the cne-sixth-interost in the 263 acres of 
Iowa land. The Trustee to pay direct to me for 
your account, dividends from the Iowa land. 
This we hoped to be sufficient for interest and 
principal payiaents. 

The $5025.00 mortgage was given to 
first repay the second mortgage of IIi-s. 5lair, 
which was surely pressing at that tirae. Also 
taxes and loan expanse. As early as convenient 
for funds, the -Dradley loan in the amo\int of 
^2500 to be repaid, and the iii5025 aortgage to 
then beooiue a first and only raortgage, secixred 
by property stated, and payable Tonder conditions 
set out. The ^2500. loan to Bradley to be pay- 
able fz-cin funds to be received under the 4r'5025 
mortgago under date of July 24th last, ./uid your 
responsibility for the Bradley loan ceased both 
as to interest and principal as of July 24, 1935, 
and youz* sole responsibility is under the ,ii^5025 
mortgage bearing interest at 52 per aruiun and pay- 
able as stated. 

'.■/e have hoped that the rcatter could be 
entirely ooxipleted before this. AJ.1 taxes, insur- 
ance preraiuGs, abstracting and recording and 
loan expense, and interest account Bradley loan 
were cared for at the saiae tiice as the siortgage 
to lilrs. Blair was paid. The latter was CiUiCelled, 
releasea and the cancelled papers returned to you. 

Very truly yours, 

C-, H. liacClyment " 

On ^epteiaber 10, 1937 Kisa ^, 3trawn filed the instant com- 
plaint in the circuit court of Peoria County making the Institute 

a party defendant aiid praying for an order directing it to deliver 

to the plaintiff hhk the note and mortgage which it held and that 

it be decreed to release the mortgage of record. By its araended 

answer the Institute stated that prior to July 24, 1935 George R. 

IiiacClyment ascertained from the plaintiff that she required a 

mortgage loan to refinance the property upon which the Institute 

had a mortgage, that liacClyment informed her that he could secure 

the money for her, that he did so secure it from Anna '.i^estlake and 

5. 



)■" '' +l'^'"';"^'Tt' ^"'"irl "iif ?:i ■"■u't'ii'?';?" ■?;' 






•Y.fi<i -Tu; auHtitfl neq i€ is JaeieJni 



br 
n. 



ol 









:■,• an.Sf-i. .w-;:^ aa;&9l9i od- hpeio&i> ad" *1 

: — , --.. 'f'Ta diifi/i-tdreiil Slier ^cewaas 

.^^iiJ^BJ[:q 6:,: .. ;;i:T.".B.J''j;:fi3.c iaoBSiLOos^, 

; ;^,&^0C3. B bzsi 
tb 8x1 iBd!t ^•z»d •rot ^©con vj : 



in exchange for the suia of :|5025.00 MacGlyment delivered the 
Strawn note of $5025.00 and the trust deed securing the same 
to Anna V.'estlaltBj that liTacGljiient did not pair the institute the 
amount dus it from the proceeds of the loan r^iade hy Ivlrs. Stravm, 
and that it c:^.nnot ascertain v/hat he did v^'ith the airiount ilac 
Clytasnt received v/hieh was due the Institute upon its note and 
mortgage. Upon the motion of the Institute Anna Viestlake aas 
made a party defendant and the Institute filed a cross-complaint 
against her in v/hich it alleged that vJeorge A. l^IacCiyment was 
the agent of ilnna .»estlalce for the pui'pose of investing for her 
the Buia of §5025.00, that ilnna VJestlake delivered to hisi said 
aiaount and she instinicted him to procure for her a first mort- 
gage lisu upon the preroises involved in this proceeding, that 
contrary to her instructions MacOlyraent did not appl;'- any portion 
of the money received from Anna Y/estlalce in pay:ient of the iinort- 
gage indebtedness to the Institute. The prayer of the cross- 
complaint was that a decree be entered finding that MacClynient , 
at the time of the trsjtsactions, v/as acting for and as agent of 
Anna Westlalce and that the mortgage hold ty her he decreed to ue 
inferior and subordinate to the lion of the nort^age held by the 
Institute. 

In her answer to the crosa-coraplalnt Axma Viestlaice denied 
that J.'IacClyment was the agent of aisa -^. Strawn but avers that 
he was the general a:::;ent of the Institute in loaning its noney 
and collocting principal and interest due it. 3ne alleged that 
she gave l.:acCl:>T,ient 15025.00 for the purpose of satisfying the 
Strawn mortgages, v/hioh v/ere held by the Institute and by Ivlrs. 
Blair and she charged that Llaceiyment received the money from 
her as the authori2.ed agent of the Institute and that payment to 

6. 



aricj- f>©i6v . 

edi Gitsiti&aX »tli x^h. ^oa bib ctnecr^IO:; '" 
jnw/j-^a-b .." ■ SbfiH rtaol a/l^ io 3i>c©ooiq 

I)iIB " " " . " " ' " J ,.» J J. s> :., , , 

inlzLoisioo--'. •• ■ - .j-...- ">- 



!" » .-> F 



3 tan. £[Wsi^S 

•It <il Qvb inuoaa 
it iBAi han 

. ..aiflyJIOM 
,j\ '":o iaejiB esii 



(Jijilc^ j^jrr.'fic-io',^--!;! uld* fr.i £'-.rIr--*:i.J nocln'JT.q, srlt rrcrir a^^lL ©sjbs 

noid-ioq Y-^-" :i&iiaoo 

-t-ioia Qiii ^o i'con^fBq . iA HOIS'}: f.*vi©oei ^©coc! »£[J- lo 

^izcx^l^o&il ^hdi '^.SiltnXI 6©ie*c© ©rf ©©io©£"» « d-Ailc)- auw .>'HJtfl.CqcK)0 
lo ^ii©»fi &B JEma lol :^atteB a£W ,8uol;tofiafli>i;t ©il;^ xo emU QdJ ts 

.e-iuit&BOl 
TlsIqx-Kso-eRorto ©fi" 

iJeal ©lie- io iti©5va iaiaaeS' esi& esw srI 



1 : iexf ©^a^^oii; 

D0ln©£) ©iv'.Irf'ee 
J-fiil-' Sim mf£' 



him operated as a payment of the Stravm note nind mortgage wliicli 
the Institute held. After the issues were raade up the cause was 
referred to the Master, ivho took the evidence and reported the 
sard©, together with his conclusions, to the ohancellor. The 
raaster fouud that in thic tranr>action LlaeClyivient \;aa acting as 
solo buslnecs manager of the Institute, that in procuring the 
sum of v5025.CO frori Anna Westlalce, I^cGlyident \¥as to pay the 
Stravm indcbtecinonr> tc the Institute and that said indebtedness 
v/as in fact paid to IlacGlyxient and its payraent to hin operated as 
a discharge of the Strawn mortgage. The ohancellor, after over- 
riiling exceptions to this report, entered a decree in co^if oriaity 
therewith disziiasing the cross-ooaplaint for want of equity and 
granting the prayer of the crig-inal coijiplairit . Fron that decree 
Bradley Fol^rtechnic Institute appeals. 

In our opinion tho evidence sustains the finding of the master 
and supports thc5 decree. Georjie E. liaQClyDient was the only person 
authorized to receive payment of the indebtedness due from lirs. 
Stra^-vn to appellant . The evidence is that he raade several trips 
to see Ltrs. Stravvn about paying this obligation after it hacaine due 
on Ja:iuary 10, 193'!i-. He told her he Icnew v^'here am amount cufficient 
to pay off appellant and tho araount due on the second mortgage to 
Mrs. Blair could be obtained. On July 2, 1935 he obtained this 
amount for these specific purposes from i-irs. 'Jestlalie and there- 
after on J'uly 24:, 1935 in compliance virith his roquilsfc iirs, Stravm 
came to his office at the Institute and executed the new note 
for i-5025.00 and the trust deed securing it, together with an 
assignment of the trust certificate, that thereupon MacClyment 
delivered to -.Irs. 3travm the release of the Blair mortgage but 
did not tjive her a release for the mortgage held by appellant, 

7. 



ilCf.i': 

asw »&u£.^ 









-,•, (') 









ilOC 



9«£ sjtts; 



- ."-■rr.f:" 'to srf:f **:>? icrr,'?t:T' 

rbl.bB'iS. 



BtAJt he 






'::iy'lh 



.7 



although he had previously received from llrs, V/estlalce the 
amount represented by the note and mortgage which appellant 
held. From all the evidence it is apparent that l^acClynient 
was acting in his capacitj'- as agent and business manager of 
appellsjit virhen he received the jnoney from Mrs. V/estlake for the 
specific purpose of discharging appellant's mortgage and payment 
to him, in equit'y, operated as a payrriant to appellant and dis- 
charged the indehteduess due appellant upon the Stravna note and 
mortgage. Vihen, on July 'lU, 1935, i&cGlyment refused to deliver 
to Ivlrs. Strawn the release of the mortgage held hj appellejit, 
he had previously received from jSrs. Westlafce full payraent there- 
of. In bringing about this pajnuent he was acting as appellant's 
representative, T.IacCli^ent by his negotiations as agent for 
appellant procured frora rh>s. Westlake a B\m. of money sufficient 
to satisfy the Strawn mortgage y^hich appellant held. Appellant 
does not contend that MacGlj'T7tent was the agent of I'-jts. Stra-wn 
but insist that the evidence discloses that vrhat he agreed to 
do v/as to arrange for the refinejaoing of her loan to appellant. 
ViTaat the ovidonce discloses is that ll^acGljiaent advised -irs. 
Westlake that appellant held a mortgage on Ilrs, Strawn's property, 
that there was a junJ-or lien thereon held b3'" an-Other party, that 
they aggregated approxi 'lately $5,000.00, that if she ?/ould give 
him that amount he y;ould pay off those lien§ and procure a note 
secured by a first lien upon the Strawn property for her. Upon 
these representations krs. v-Zestlake gave him .|5,000,C0 for those 
express purposes and this money came into his hejids as the only 
person authorized by the by-law?^ of appellant to receive it. 
Counsel for appellant argue, however, that inasmuch as ilacGlyment 
did not pay the amount due appellant upon the Strawn indebtedness 
but converted it to his ovra use, the only reasonable conclusion 

S, 



tiri& 92[-'5lJ'a»VV ^anM eioi'i fievleooi vlairolveic bad ed dsuodtlB 



&aalzriZL'.^ :2ac:'i ic miis :: oi^^ 



iiU -:> i- 



. 8*1' ■: r> R P. r rr ,•; . , .7 ■■; Cf- 



s&6d^ 






f>©i0Oe^ 



- eseiaze 



nolBi/Iorroo ©Idflxioajsett x-^no odcf ,6sxr xiwo eld oct ;ti i)o^8vnoo ;fira 



that can be dravm froii tiie adidbted facts is tliat he oontinued to 
hold this rioney as the ngent of llrs. v/estlake and that the I'esult 
of the entire tranuaction was that the Stvtvtra mortgage to appellant 
reraa|ned a first lien and that 2Crs. westlaice'e mort^ago is infer- 
ior to itt- lien, '^e do not think so. Thsye crine into MaoOl^rnent 's 
hands au atjont of appolliat inoney furnished by Vj-s. ^'.'ostlalce for 
the express purpose of satisfying the Strawn sort^agc v/hich appell- 
ant held. The receipt by Ji'aoGlj-.'iien.t of this a::i0"j.nt vifas in fact 
payment to appellant and operated, in eq^uity, to discharge the lien 
thereof. llacClyiuent so stated in his letter to I^rs. Straivn of 
NoTember IS, 19;.5 hereinbefore referreh to. iurthernore sorae time 
later "fioss S. ■.Wallace, president of appellaiit, '.stated to Johu J". 
Etravm that he had seen a oopjr of this letter and then advised 
Strawn that sone of Ivfe.cClyraent's affairs were not in proper order 
but for LIr. Straxvn to go hone and not to v/orry. r."r. Strawn tes- 
tified that I&. T;allacc also said to hiii upon this occasion: 
"You v/111 not have any interest or principal to pay, don't give 
it any v^rorry". 

The evidence is farther that the books of appellant relative 
to the 'jtra-.vn loan were under the suprevision and control of !Iac 
Cly-.iont and they disclose that on Set^tember 5, 1935 MacCl>rricnt 
credited the Gtravm nortgage with ?)124.31, which reduced the prin- 
cipal 3\m due to .J2500.00, that on the sarae day tjie books shov; tm 
interest pa^Taent of ;j)76.20 and on Janiiari'- 22, 193^ a further 
credit is sho>OTL of 076.10 interest due January 10, 1936. These 
last entries were made by yacGlyiasnt so that the records of appell- 
ant would disclose that this loan, was in good standing. There 
was also introdiioed in evidence a statement in the h;:Lad\\'ritin5 of 
MacGl-^n-ient dhowlng the '.feat lake and otrav/n transaction. The amoxmt 



ilisnei oxi.. 

io'\ o:i2.[>r- 
-Ileqqs r- 
i^Ofll .... 



,£lj£ou .a:il 



111* 



>JU?J.«ViO 



^saoa £iiiiJ IjIoJl 



JiVi^'V^iS 



&.'.';. 1...'' r:3:os 



it's el Vf).'': 



^*3 .-f.' 



■vOj 



-fll-: 
■■'Lleq_q& lo 






' 3£)'£i^SS^.. 



oaQblre 



. '-vl-ix 



he receiTed from I.Trs. ..'estlaSce appears thereon, together with 
the amount he paid to prociire the release of the Blair mortgage, 
together with various ether itens such as abstract expenses, 
taxes, reccrdiag and th3 iteras credited to the Stranm aoooimt 
on appellant's books for interest and the b.rJLance as shown hj 
the books of appellant just referred to. 

The decree is sustained by the oYidence and will tnerefcro 
be affir/ied. 



dilTi ^exiJ"0£0 3' ,noeioxlv siBoqqB eroj-ij-Jas .«tM mori msTi&oe'x erf. 
'-■ ' ' .-^ ,. . r^ >^ f^fj^ ^Bcied'Cl net aaloorf s'^/islj'eqqc nc 



STATE OF ILLINOIS. 1 

SECOND DISTRICT J I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



Cleric of the Appellate Court 



^ 



AT A T3HIi OF TIG APP3LLAT.1; COURT, 

Begun and held at Ottav/a, on Tuesday, the 7th dajr of Hay, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 

Present -- The Hon. FRED G. '.'OLFj], Presiding Justice 
Hon. 3L;.IITE rlUFFIl'J^ Justice 
Hon. FR.^iiTI-XIH R. D0V3, Justice 
JUSTUS L. J0H].I30IT, Cleric 
S. J. \'S:.T3R, Sheriff ^' "' -' "" 



BE IT RSI:EIIB3RED, that afterwards, to-v/it: On MAY 15 1940 
the Opinion of the Court v/as filed in the Cleric's Office of 
said Court, in the words and fiQ;ures follov/inc, viz: 



Z. 



noli erlT — ftte&i'i.^: 



■'Oil 



CO oAi ax bBlfi a.c" ' ■" -* to noiniqO =. 



GISj. NC. 9530 



^ \ AG2ITDi no. 20 




J\?ITS J. MoCADIJ^, Adrainj^trat 

Afpelloe J;, 



AIKTaSTA Pil^TERB, ex al (;7alter ) 

Ilaertel, Appellant) ) 



) COURT OF McHSl^ST COuIJTT. 



DOYS, J. 

On Ivlarch 15tii, 1939 Jamas J. McCauley, Administrator de bonis 
non viltii the /illl Ax^naxad of the Sste.te of Charles Peters, deceased, 
filed his petition in tne County Oom-t of iicHenry County to Hell the 
real eetate of Iiis testate to pay the debts of said decedent, A 
hearlixi?: v/as had, rer.Tjltine': in s decree directing the GdministrBtcr to 
proceed to advertise and sell S8.id real estate as provided hj law* 
'xQ reverse thia decree './Rlter Eaertel, one of the defendants, appealed 
to the Siipreme Court of this State, which transferred the cause to 
this court. 

Frod the record it appears th^.t Charles Peters, s resident of 
the Village of Himtley, died on November 2J, 1939, testate, leaving 
Augusta Peters, his widow, and an adult dau{rbter, Caroline 3.^eters 
Webster, his only heirs ynd devisees. 3y the provisions of hir. will 
he bequeathed and devised his property to hio daughter snbiect to the 
life estate of hi^ v/idow. On December 23, 1929 this will was duly 
admitted to probate and letters testamentary issixsd to his widow. 



OS .oil Aayrr^/ 



t 



oji^ «QH ,m& 



ir,jjoo YavsKoM ■■_. 






.'i;.ai;AOoi: .1, 



^ »t>&9 






S TT' r.. i -:j.^jLA~~ 






.s^'cl xrf JbeMvo^q «c ed^scfss 1b91 rcjse Ii»e bat; sii^iovl)^ oj fie^poiq 

.J^uioo aid* 
'to tfna&^eei b tST:©*®*? aelnsxlO d'^rid' aosoqq^i Ji fcoooo's iwi* «t)'.: - 
Sclvnel ,s^r.d-2ecr t^^v?! ,C. T»dinovoTl no feslfi .yel^mtJ^ 1:o e^^sIXlV erfsf 

iltft r\lsi lo anolalvQrDj eil^t' x9 .aeoalrefc btm atiar; 

ado Ost (Jostcfxra aaifrf^jcrpfc e/;fi od" Tdrxstp-Ki eiiil i>ssjtv9a Ejiua fife/ldBSi/pQcf eil 
Ylul) 8JW II ±w a-trfi- C-'SP.f imaooa jaO ,WQi4w nXti to ed■Bc^c© 8t4,X 



The following March Term of the Probate Court v;as fized for the 
adjusti-aant of claims and publication duly raade thereof and an order 
entered by the Coun-t;?- Court determning heirship and appointing 
appraisers as provided by lav/. On Juni.- 6, 1931 H. II. Ccor: filed 
his claim for 3;'anerj.LL expenses and this claim was allowed and judg- 
ment rendered in nis favor for :f324.25 on NoTenber 26^ 1934. Nothing 
further appears to have been done "cov/ard tlie settloi-.snt of the estate 
until April 8, 193-1 v^hen ^^rs, Peters, as executrix, filed her in- 
ventory 'vViiich disclosed "Ghat her husband 3.3ft nc personal property 
of any Icind or character but ov/ned the dwelling in the Village of 
iluntloy, which was occupied by hiricelf and wife at the time of his 
death and according to the inventory worth iU^OO.OO. This inventory 
was duly approved. On Deoenber 2B, 1936 the said -i^dvmrd si. Cook 
filed his petition settin/^ forth that he was a judsia'snt creditor 
of said estate ex-d interested in its administration and thao Augu.3ta 
Petera war. both pnyrsioally and nenc.;al.ly incapable of continuin;:; hor 
duties as ejvecu-cri:: ai:.d praying for her removal. Upon a hearing an 
order was entered renoving her and J'aiiies . ircCauley v/as duly 
appointed adZiiinistrator de bonis non with the ';/ill Annexed of the 
wBtate of Charles Peters, deceased. Theref.fter the appraisers, ap- 
pointed on Decei'ibor £3, 1929, filed their report fixing the aniotarfc 
of the widow's axi/Qi'd at ■'.•bOOtdO, wiiich was duly approved and an 
order entered finding the condition of the estate. By thin order 
it appeared that the liabilities consisted of said widov;'s av/ard 
of iii&OO.O'J, olains allowed anounting to •:f354.25 and costs duo and 
to accrue a'Tiomiting to ""-ir/^.CO, all of which agcrer^ated '|1229.25 
and that there v/ere no assetp in the hands of the adninistratoi". 
Thereupon the instant verified petition to sell real estate to pay 
debts vy'as filed by said IvloCauley as adi;iinistrator . 'I'he petition 



fiellt 5iaoO . .mujX ££{;> ,ff«X i^ inft^i'vorcq «b eieelBiqfiB 

-gfjijj, iam bQXfoXJji now HsMlo la^tAi Mr r:9?!.Tf-rpc^ IflTfrr"*r -rol jaialo «lil 

sni-ri^oK: ,AC9I ids letfiaoiroH cio ^S.AS> o&xioi Jtrtepi 

-fljt ion fieXil , .n'**^ narhT tiet>I .fc fitqA lid-ntr 

'io e»BlXlV ©xl* flx aulXCwwJb ♦il^ iir tQ&OBiBiit) to fcnlsl ^J^ ^o 

■^lotw&Tci ela' • ow \;^t©^JU®v: ' 39b 

' & faeK t : ■ >f«*l 

vcq ojf aiucMi©' Xriei XXfea at' ao'lt-titq t'B^,}*To-r :^ss&sai eriiJ- feoqirorrfeiiT 



recited the foregoing facts and further alleged that since the 
death of Charles Peters the reaJL estate had been rented for ^'^'^O.OO 
per ncnthj which rents had been collected hy the Evangelical Lutheran 
Old Folks Kot.-:e of Chicacio. It A'as furt'ier alleged that the t&jces 
had not been raid and that the taxes and penaltioo upon the property 
aiiioiuited to (^.^RG.O^ and that the property haid been forfeited to the 
State of Illinois for non-paynent of taj^es. Appellr.nt vras rrx.de a 
party defendant to this proceeding and on dTtme 5j 1939 filed the 
folloiidng unTerifiod ansiver: "ilow cones the defendant by Mfircus J. 
jjternberg, his attorney, and denies each and HTery allegation set 
forth in the action broUf;;]"'i.t by the plaintiff herein and ca.lls foi' 
strict proof. He denies the ri^ht of the plaintiff to recover upon 
said action so b3:'Ou,iht hy him herein". 

Tho record diseloBes that upon tho hearini^ counsel for appellant 
objectod to the court proceedi.i\.«^ to render a decree or entortaining 
the proceeding on the Gi'0'-i^-<^ that seven yoars had elapsed after the 
death of Charles Petarc; boforo tie petition to '^ell veol estate was 
filed and objected to tlie introduction in avidenoe of the appraisers' 
estinate of the aiaount of tho ;yidow*s av'ard and the a proval thereof 
by thd court. These objections vers overi'ulod and the cautso p^'-'ooeeded 
to a decree and it vras stipulated by counsel for tha purpose of ruuicing 
up the record on appeal that th3 saverrJL petitions and orders horoin 
referred to should be aade a part of the record on appeal, to^^ether 
with a copy of the record of an assignj-jjent by Aur'.usta Peters exec ited 
December 15, 193^ by the provisicnc of vrhich she assigned to the 
'JvangslicaJL Lutheran Old Folics lioms Association of Chicago ell the 
rights which she itdsht have in ths estate of Charles Peters as his 
survivinp^ vvldow, heir, ler;at8e or devisee. The decree, in addition 
to findin;'? this igact, also fOTind that the daughter, !<lre. hebster, had 

3. 



aif ■ ocfite tcsii fcd3©XlB losit'itft bus aioat ^alo^&tol 9Ai b&iioei 
Ov. : b&4M9i OMd kad ©cfstfaH 1&91 eAi Slots'^!. C3ri.?:,:-!.D "i-o i^^B^'o 

. 'Uoiftr; jttirf "id Mh"Q%$ Oft floid'Oa. i)jU* 
d-iiBX.i>«[q[A «©1 i»anifoo ;^«J:5y>»£i pit* jho<ib' it; l9ajtl> MQO&%.r«rr 

£)8b©6So-H, .1" i'. J ?■■;■-;> J c oiew aa&ttOGldo oc " 

•I9rfo«»2ao'" tX.a»qf<tf:: ijQ Moosi an\t 'io i^SJBq, ti e&am »d eXJtroi. 
f)ect: ositt.. j5'ibJ"€^'=I ai^ur-uA vu ^■aetijisisujs im* lo f/i^oat add' )o ijgoo .b jiJiw 

9x1^ XXi3 o?.fi*iil0 to iipi*J8l308aA ©ffoE e^iXo'? i>LO ob-x^MuI Xi30jLX«stt»*BL 

aolflhfUB Rt ,e*»f!- . > eet^nte^.r ,*tXod ,wOi&ivr sitXyXTW't, 





: ^'au 


f^^ 


Oiij 'y.w 


.f>f»[C: 


,.. 




^l.v .jA> 


w,. ,^^i3«1i»a 



convejed her interest in the prordses to her Iaot^.er end had i\lso 
conveyed to her r'.othcr all her distribxitive share in the estate of 
Charles Poters, deces-necl, .and further that on April 6, 1933, Snos 
Gonnley had obtained a jiidgnient a-Qjainst Aagiista P-tera in the a^moixnt 
of $319*13 iE. the Circuit Court of McHenry County and that on J'uly 
2$, 193- the istate Bank of Huntley had also obtained a judgniant 
against hsr in said court for ;;226.11 and that on July 27th, 1934 
V/altcr Haertel, appellant herein, had obtained a j-adsasnt in said 
ccurt against the said Au^^sta Peters for $192.00. The decree further 
found that the said iJ. ii. Cook had filed a claira against said estate 
for the funeral expenses of the deceased and that his olairi therefor 
had been duly allowed by the executrix and that Dr. Oliver I. Stoller 
had filed his claim a.;;ain3t said estate for professional services 
rendered the deceased during his last illness and that said clain 
had been duly aliowoa on iiarch IGth, 1937. 

Counsel for appellant argue tha.t this petition was based in 
port upon a v/idovi^'G award v/hich was allowed more than seven years 
after the death of the testator and that the decree is therefor© 
erroneous . 

The lavv is that while there Is no statute of limitations barring 
proceedings by adirdnistrators for the sale of land to pay debts, 
yet the ri[;;ht to sell the real estate of a deceased person for such 
purposes will be barred after the lapse of seven years unless the 
delay can be satisfactorily explained and in this respect each case 
must rest upon its o-rt-n peculiar facts. Hurlbut v. Talbot, 273 111. 
299. It appears from this record that the only property which 
Charles Peters owned at the tine of his deatn v/as the property which 
this decree orders sold. At the tine of his death on November 23, 

4. 



e©iiS ,£C^*X ,^ liiiiA eo 49d& 'iBd&ru^ baa ,j&^«6©o»fi jarrsi-©^ eeliflriC 
ixTjjoiaiJ elf J' at att©*?^ jeJ^axftV-'A d-8iiJt.'3^» d^ereafcift ^ tjr-J'iJo fi.-.' "•',.'" rrjio'O 

♦\f<?I ,xt^VS T^-j/t no *Ati^ ftofl Il.dSI^ -stot 4-iurc i.fRj nl tf>d c!-Bflfifl5i«i 

.f>i:Be Hi iTi^ir^iAirt s b^tttBf<io *»tf ^Jtlsierf^tfljls: ,IetT.e*H I9tl^' 

leA&'irn 99'iaeb »xfr .OO.S^Xi^ not 8Te^o«l Bcfaif^^xiA *1jm odd' dBalas* chctroo 

•ioJ.e'x®!iS alnlo ^M $%df htm bQeiaeoiib edd- 'ro ayaiio<pca XaMGxifft Qdrt *l€& 

ecoivnea XBaoJtee-elorrg not ©^»;fe.« tl«e J"t=»DiBj'i« alplo eid 6eXl% Jbaci 
wJ;f!Xs hlns, tBilS tsTB aRftoXXi dBfvX eiri TWtJtiitD bo«A©Opfe »ii^ ft-a'xe On©^ 

*\X9l ^tiiOl flO'faM no lb9Wi£i& "iSssb /reed tfnti 

i'J. beBB6 stmff tmJJM^ii Qtiii issii ©/fj'Xja snBll9q(j[B tol Xeemol 
CTJV6Y xievH?. nf'iii ©loji' X>ewoIXj3 a«w riaXriw bifc^B a'aro&JEw b noqif *iflC[ 

©Tclefeil* »i 8i!»5oaf)- »d& S&di baa io^p&&ei -eidi to ii&B0b oft* f«.tt* 

. vMsfi 'ifBcf od- feftftX lo ©Xx^a &At rtol B-xocfB'i^alxsifaJifi y'^ a;^Xi/S30Ofiq 

oficJ- aaeXxixx atBOX' xtsvsa 1:o esqsX cxid- led^f? bet'iad ed XXiw •a'oeofixrti: 

sa^o xlojae ioGqs&t sttf-i ai bai) baalalaxo y,llio4ojs,\ztiBVi e<f xwo Y^t'XeX* 

. ' ■'; f^S ,;Jo{JXflfD .V i/jdXiiiE ,E5ofit ^«JtXiN>«<j fiwO eitX noqtr ^ei J-euBi 

i^oixtw --^jJ-ieJioiq ^Xxio ©xiJ' iifM;? j&'xooea eiif^ iBoq:t B*r»e<iq« if I *??;,J5 

xiDxnv/ Yd-^eqoiq. exl* aaw xtd-B«fi alii 10 ©asJf-f '^H !^ ir. ri'-.n'.«^ or«erf$^ ««-X*f»rfO 

.PS lediusvoll jfio £fd-i3ij.6 Eiii Ic as2;'- arii ."TO 9eT6«& eirtct 



1929 he and his wife -svere occupyin.? the same as their hoiriestead. 
Kis iviii was adiidtted to probate and on 1^'ecenber 23, 1929 his vrluoyt 
was appointed exscutriz of his estate . She rixcd a day for the 
adjustment of clains, made piihlioatioa to that effect and the court 
appointed appraisers. On LfoTonoer 26, 1934 the clain of Edward H, 
Cook for funeral expenses v/es allov/ed by the Co'iiat;,,'" Court find there- 
after the executrix filed an inTentory, On December 2^^^, 19.3o, ?/hich 
v/as seven years and five days after the executrix wtis b.ppointed, 
lidward -H, Cooic as a judgment creditor filed his petition to have the 
executrix reiiioved, allegin;:^ her physical and iiiental incapacity. 
?i(hen she becai.ae nentally and physically incapacitated does not appear, 
but she was reiaoved and the present adninistrator with the vrill annexed 
v?as appointed to eoiiiplete the settlement of her estate and the appraisers 
appointed by the coi^.rt in 1929 fixed the amount of the widow's award 
and this was approved by the court and this avi'ard, together with the 
allowed claims for funeral expenses and for physician's services 
rendered the deceased in his last illness lom the basis for the 
present procesding. The facts in ail of the cases cited and relied 
upon by counsel for appellant are easily distinguishable fjjiom the 
facts as disclosed by this record. Vilien this pr-opei*ty ceased to be 
the homestead of ohe surviving widov/ of Charles Peters does not 
appear ana in our opinion the court in the instant case rendered the 
only decree that was warranted \mder the authorities. The delay of 
the executrix Augusta Peters in settline" this estate end having an 
award set off to her cannot prevent the present petitioner, v^ho is 
the adiiiiiiistrator do bonis non with the vrill annexed, frcni proceeding 
to subject the real estabe of thJ deceased to the payiaent of the 
allovved claims against his estate. 

5. 



woiiiw aid <-, . ... , . :^'3^ no I' ':>tq o,f JteJ-ctJbaJbB sbw IXii» BJtH 

add- lo*! xflft -« tDXtt f>/18 .acfjajtoa eld ^o xiitirce^:* 6etflJtoqc[B «Mr 
o TA.fr,.) eil* bim toofio &BA<f ot xiolljiolldinj oHifia ^^ciIbIq "to cfnsitflairtJ&B 

-ei9d:r 5>fl« ^'ttfoO 'ccTxaioO oJiJ "t^ b^m^lla s^'v ieeaoqxe Ifliemrl not jloot 
iiojtiL'w ,6(:9I ,8S •M'^btwtsa flO .X'io<ta'arfat aa heltt x±i^ifOt»x« esii leiXa 

sri.i- ©vefi or;t aeWid^ iLlI lod-JrBoio . ftiiswJKi 

. :J-l«fitpjO.-ii is^raa* 6fi» XijoJUrcric, le/i "s^xi^eiiB .bsYOioew xIi^u^sxq 

Bexoarts III* «fl;t cU-Jtw 'lo^BiJBinliafes Ssm9.9%a 9A^ baa borosmt 9jm axia iif€ 

Lijs.'jj «»wolilw •liJ lo iniwuTfi sriJ- ftftxlt 9S9X sJ trss^n sild irrf ftf»;fal:o<iq« 

eil;t la-iw Tsd^eso^ ,Biavrfl aiii^r t^ob iiaofi :^tii yd 6»vort<jq:« a«w eJtxiJ' 6n/5 

aoolvrrea e'cuBlolnx^Q io*^ J^*t« a^fiiie^jx© Inionj^ rrot RPii/iXo hewoXXfl 

er:.j lo'i aiss<f a/i^" sned aaenXXl *a»X eirf n.r. iieaneos^ sUJ teiejsn&i 

i)olX0i Las be:!lo s98ao axW to XX* all »«J-oiBl odT .^alfieoooitf iJaeaenq 

orivt iUKs"?: ela"fir?elir3n;:*8ll) ^Xiaije ©tcb &ttMLl»^<ia tdl. J ^:tf coqff 

ec cJ iH-aiiee YiJ"i:9qoiq elriJ- aerfV/ .lirrooei e.tii;t ycf £>©«ol'ji. j.^ ea a^oal 

toa aoob STerf©^ eeXajoriO to wofilw snivivix/;. " liBt;! sewoil osli 

e/fJ- ftstoM©^ QBBO d'^tfii'-Bcl »il& at S^nxmo exitf" noir£..q^j ijo ni JbjM rmeqqjs 

lo x^Ji.&b aaT iSalil'ro/id'ija sil^t -xeMv bs^sx£,rs:tssvi asm taili^ osncosl) \;Xno 

iTfl gGivjsil l>Jt?3 9v^a;fa9 alrl* rialliJ^es nl ■Siieo'-eS. jisrfaiSfjifA xi:*iJi;»«X8 Qsii 

sx oilw ,iejatol*l<fsq i-nea^rcq sdi' tfrcevsiq d-Oiu:Ja» a»«i oif llo ;t»8 £ibwb 

vAfT'Sosooiq oioz'j: «l»oxaiiiiB XXlw sxU /l^t'lK aoii eliiotf ©b rra-^srritsxxiiDLbjs. oil* 

i:i.t to .f-^:-. vna uri.t c*.'- ''ec'SOfti, sdJ" ^o adscfeo Xfierc ©rfit ioel^iua^ o/ 

.aJBd-as a/ii leniasiB smirilo b&v6lL& 



The statute Linder ivMcia this proceeding is had px-ovidos that 
the practice in sueh cases shall be tho saiae as in Chancery. The 
q-uestion of laches in the allowance by the cciirt of the i/idov/'s 
a'lYarci or lashes in filiu.:r the instant petition was not rp.ised cy 
any pleadin?? i'ilscl by appellant and i^ therefore not available to 
appellant. Hiroh v. Arnoli, 31f^ 131. 2;?: .iltin,:: v. First ITatM. 
Bank, 173 111. 368, 

The decrao v.^ill be affirmed.. 

DECREE MTJmim. 






■ijeol.^ -^ius 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, | 

SECOND DISTRICT J ' I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

. in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



Clerh of the Appellate Court 



isit/- 



AT A t:5SIi of tii:^ app3LLat.] court, 

Begun and held at Ottav/a, on Tuesday, the 7th daj^" of Hay, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fortj;", 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 

Present -- The Hon. FRUD G. '.'OLFE, Presiding Justice 
Hon. BL;.II!E HUFFILU^ Justice 
Hon. FRiUII'Xin R. DOVE, Justice 

JUSTUS L. JOiniSOII, Clerk fx f^ T h /I O ^ \ 
S. J. '.^.TER Sheriff O W «3 i«ii» ^ O VF 



BE IT REi:SIIBERSD, that afterv/ards, to-v/it: On MAY 1 5 t940 
■the Opinion of the Court T//as filed in the Clerk's Office of 
said Court, in the v/ords and figures follov;ing, viz: 



GMI. ITO. 9514 



AGENDA HO. 24 . 



HI 7IIS JIPP::3.L.A!PS COURT OF ILLINOIS, 
310 G^D DI3TRICT, 



EUGH a-. pks^jG^:^, 






PaI?SONS LWB.LS 0OJ'P;vyY, EJC, } 
a Gor.'porauion, 

Aril) ell ee. 




:? jisoHb iAr::[B:iu cjf^awry, inc., /} 

a Ocrpcraticn, / / ) 

/ ) 
xlpTsellee, | ) 

) 




EOGH G. P,AR30:^'S, 



Arpsllant . 



) 




APP'-^IAI.. FROlf THE CIHOTIT GOUHT 
WINI^iEBAGO COIKrTY. 



KUI'FI^iAK ~ J'. 

The Parsons Lrjabar CoBipany v»sfc incorporated cbout 1922. Hugh 
Or, laraoiiG beoari-.e President of the corapaiij" an.u. ooiitlnued in sueii 
CRi-acity lair-il tiic closfc oi" 1931. After his services had been 
severed as President ana raaaager of tiie corporation, he brought suit 
against the ccnpojij- for 4fl951.''iO for back salary. Tho cciiipany filed 
aiiswer and counterclain in that sxiit. Parsons filed replies to t lie 
aiiswei' and countercialra. «7hile that suit wafc penuing, tl<.e corporation 
filed its Goiiiplaiut in ohfu.cerj'- agairist Parscna for an accounting vdth 
respoet to certain ite^s of expenditures of the cocipany's funds. The 
trial court ccnsolidated the law case with the chancery action. 



.ix2 .oil . iM<V .UM 



rTr\ ninyir\r<. 



\ 



f^;Tjr;,r 



\ 






,noi;Jcioqic 



,ia£iX 



i^i-r .->Z^i J'IfOJG li&J^i.'S.O.^'XOOnA Jki'iii'i L- 

40.UB ill IWi SiXB X^««imoo jai4 '.W to^i^iua'X'i iuiU30«cf cnoa-ii;. . 

aoltB7.QqT:oo ori-t ,3fil5a[aM0[ asw &tiJB &aA$ sXJtriW .i&XbIoisJ' 11000 6nB lawBiajB 
Aitliif :s^l^susooo» iTM lot aaoaisZ &6alm» vrseoaoilo nl ifxiiisXiisioo a*i I>d.C.i:l 



It appears by the allegations in the bill ior accounting, that 
between Jantiary 1, 192?, and December '}!, 1931, Parsons had expended 
|1S,9SS.83 of the conptmy's money, which expenditure was .:3;roiiped rmder 
three heaaingy, desitiXiated as ''expanss account," "traveilin^ expense," and 
"Auto expouse." It v-/as alleged that none or these expense accounts 
disci oaed for wiicit purpose the raoney Vi?as used, and it vvas charged 
that he had used the saue for v/rongful purposes; that such expenditures 
■■.vore not ail bona fide and jaiade in connection vn.th the business of the 
coapany, ':.?he complaint for accounting prayed for discovery as to the 
actual use and purpose for v/hioh the laoney v/as e;;pc;iided; that an. 
accoujitinfe be h.ad j.n ord.r to detoiiaino v/hat sums v/erc iiapi-operly 
expended, aad that upon such an accounting, u decree j-iight be entered 
finding the asiount ■vvnich should be ryturnod to tne i.'laintiff corpora- 
tion hy Parsons. 

Parsons file! axisvfor to tho conplaint for accounting, admitting 
the.t he had been President as charged; deuying that he had raade the 
all.=*3ed espsndit^ires of the conpc'Xiy's monoy "v/ithout tho hnowledi,;e 
and consent of the djj'ectors and stockholder,:; denying that nis re- 
ports of such expenditures ivsre made so as to conceal the tiu.ie nature 
t'leroof and the pu.r-posa for viilch the sanis were used; aliet;ing t-iat 
all of th3 expenditures wore for th^j bonefit of the corporatioii, aade 
with the ]:aiov/l8dge and consent of its Board of Directors and the 
stooJ-diolders thereof, and approved by then at each annual raeeting, 
to and including Beceiaber 31 » 1931 • The defenduiit Parsons denied 
all ohargss of rdsconduct v/ith respect to the use of tho corapany's 
money and denied its rit*ht to ari accovuiting. 

On Juno 26, 193'->j the then sitting Judge of th.s oirouit court 
of "■.■annabago county, on,tored a decree for aocountin£;, wherein xiiany 

2. 












on d"^iil;|. 






.UJXUJOOO* . 



^^iiixssiiiA 4?>i\i^,ai/oo 



•* w 'jL w fU^i ■J S'}i. - 



.11 aKOtt'iA;-. 
.<: £).Bj(i fii 






•■/[-^i^.t enftLIofL:-'.: 



rc^or /J 



Cl-'L 



findings of fact were incorpor^ited. By tha.t decree ths court foxmd 
that Parsons had been fully paid his salary uj) to the tine his 
services v/ith the corporation were terminated and that he had no 
salarj'- due hixa, and that in fact he had overdrawn his salary in the 
sun of §300. The decree then foxmd that certain exponditures ^.vere 
i.iade b^'' Parsons of the company's money, xvhioh corresponded to the 
tabulation of sai'ie as set out in the ccraplaint for accounting; that 
Parsons had failed to iternlze such expenditures and that there was 
nothing to show for v/hat purpose the jnoney was used, other thaji 
the generel designation of general expense, travelling expense, 
and automobile expense, as above mentioned. The court decreed that 
the coinpany was entitled to an accoimting from Parsons with respect 
to the expense items of 418,983.8'), and that he shoxild return to 
the corporation such portion of said expense mone:;' as should be 
found to liave been improperly expended, and ordered an accountins; 
taken to determine such aiaovint. The court then decreed that the 
total sum of $19,28S.S3 (beine; comprised of the tv;o items of 
ilB,988.8'), expenses, and .|300, salary), shoo.ld be the subject of 
the accounting; that the company was entitled to a decree for said 
amount against Parsons, subject to change by the further order of the 
court upon the report of the Master in Chancery to whom the caxise 
vrns x'ef erred to take tae account inr;. 

The ilaster proceeded to take the accounting. lie found by his 
report that Parsons owed the corporation the sum of ^554.83. The 
coij.pany filed objections to the Piaster's report. Parsons filed 
objections thereto, /ill objections to the report were overruled by 
the blaster, and ?;ere pernittod to stand as exceptions thereto in the 
trial court. The I {aster's report was filed January 14, 1937. 

3. 



'-•-rtrrrr.:. - ejrt08liS<I yd «6.eK 

1 nsltm&l o& belle'* Psri artOR-r 

d-£ul.t beeioeft ;tii»o« ©rfT ,ftonoi;trc»jM bto^b ha ,aeEeqio 0lliioBioiv» i'- 
sfosqaei il*J> QnoeiE*?: mini -[^aid-iurocofl na ocf l)©I;tXart© mm Yfffi<|B$OS r 
cd- ni0;J-8i biworia ad ^sri* Jl>rtfl ,CS. &at»il eacHqio ©ri? ■: 

ocf blifosixs ajs y^^cwsi oenoqxs f)ija« ^o flox^ioq rloua iicicJ'flioqrroo ;- 
•5,iijt*nfjoo OS tin fioipftrto fciia ,X)©f)ne-.q20 ^[I^eqoiqiKi neocf oVAfl oJ" Lrni/ 

•5:0 3rT»d-i: OW3- »ricf to beBliqmoo sciorf) tl^.^BS.^If ^o aum I&cr. . 

6XB8 'iOl 86106 ?) fl oS bBl^lfiie EBW Y«flqJDIDO ©xlit itfldcf l^O-lSaUOOOL Oll^ 

9ti& lo TefeTO ie^' .' ycf ©gxtarfo oi^ tveldua ^Buoaie^ i-anJtBSB iJm/oaiB 

r &At moslm vw YiooftsftO al taifeflJ.r ailit lo ^loqen ©xi;? ooq; 

aln id j:-m;Oi oil . oi^za : ' oJ" b^b9«>oo%q, t 

eriT .C8.J.5?5| TO >}ii!r^ eii& uolS.ezc-i'.oo Qtit bsvro unosmr^ ^:.:^\^ '.-iQijii- 
bell'i. enosas'^j: .tnoqort n^i&J&M ed^ pd" Qiioito©t«fo belli xcBqaso^o 
'fQ fcalirnevp e-xaw d-ioqei oiiJ od^ aiiol.t38t<Jo XXA ^o&&i^d& saolia^lt^o 



lollavrlrig tlio entry of tiia decree of Juno 26, 193^, ordering 
the accounting ac to tiLG fund in q-aestion, there v;as a succession 
to the jurisdiction, the Jud,3e ^l^antinG the decree for accounting 
ho-irin^^ died. On July 2?, 1939, the circxiit court of said county, 
in making disposition of this co.use, entered a decree wherein it 
±■9, recited that the court was uncertain as to whether or not the 
decree of J-unc 25, 1936, was a final decree, hut wherein the sar!}e 
was treated as a final decree, and binding upon the parties and 
upon the court, in adjudicating and determining that Parsons was 
indebted to the corporation in the aggregate amount of vl9j23S.S3. 
The court by the present decree finds fhat it has no rov/er to change 
or amend the decree of June 26, 1936; that it was final as an ad- 
judication of the matters in controversy between the parties and 
of their ri,'::hts relative to the subject matter of the litigation. 
All exceptions to the I-.Iaster's report were denied on the ^^round 
that the decree for accounting entered June 26, 1936, was fina.l 
and binding on tJie jjarties. 

It is maintainod on the part of appellee corporation that the 
decree of June 26, 1936, was final and deteririined the rights 
between the parties, and gave judgment against Parsons in the sma 
of ^19,288.33. 

It is naintained by appellant that such is not the situation, 
that otherwise, there would have been no object to f!;rantineX an 
acoountin:';; that a decree is not complete which remilres further 
JTidicial action on the part of the court to i;;ive it effect and to 
srant the relief sought; that this was an actioh for an accounting; 
that the rl'^ht to the accoxmtinc was denied and the amoi.int involved, 
in dispute; that iinder such circumstances, the ri>-;ht to the account- 
ing was a question to be first determned by the court; that such 
finding vtas interlocitory in its natrire; that the aiao^it for which 






' 'JZ to «91£ 



ll^ZlZSJl 






9rf* cf.sil:f aoli' 






•7>t6(T 



jjiol3-ftira"i:e ©lii 



tt>&l<io oa lieecf e 



;!j bodthtnl 



■TlJnj/ooD.' 






Parsons ni'sht be liable v/as not then fixed and dctemiiied by such 
doorse, bnt that the decree nerelj- 3et out the particular fund for 
which the accormtin?'' was to be had; and that a final jud(fnent could 
not be rendered in the case until after the Uaster had taJcen the 
accou3itin'^. 

It is thua apparent that the disposition of this appeal de- 
pends upon whether the decree of Juno 26, 1936, is to be considered 
as a final decree, or as interi.ocutory in character. 

It appeared frora the allegations of the coi^jp^aint for account- 
ing, that the character thereof vms coiaplicated and extended, and 
involved nanv tranoactions extending over n period of five years. 
The decree rrantins; the prayer for accoujit t?*s proper. The right 
of thf? corporation to tho accounting; ^vas denied by Parsons, Vlhov^ 
the liability to account is denied, there nust be an interlocutory 
decree findin-c; such liability before th!?re can be a reference to 
a Master. I'hs decree in this case directed the Tfaster as to what 
items tho account shotxld extend. This was proper, as such directions 
included only the items that were in dispute, 

Sonet imes tho account in?; is the nain relief sought. In other 
instances, it is only ancillary to other relief chanted, and in such 
cases tho decree by which the accounting Is granted, may be final 
v/ith respect to rights of the parties which mist first bo deterrained 
before an aocovmting \7ould be in order. Here, the iteas constituting 
the subject of tho acco^lntinG■, ¥/ere in sharp dispute as betv;een the 
parties and nothing appeared in the pleadings at the tine of the 
decree of O'une 26, 1936, to indicate in -vhat nanner or for wliat 
ptirpose the money was used. That was the sole question to be 
deteriiined upon the evidence introduced before the Master upon the 
hearing. Neither party was in position at the time of the decree of 

5. 



mi 3J.C 



c ... 

-Iff tsj>.t s«reri,t ofolatf Td-lIidBJ:! /lo/re J?7ri&ni1 ©»rr?>' 

090B ©|!it ioliiw -(ctf oeaoei) erlJ- see; 

^jCi^; ■: ^- : .: ,: .' aitl to i^ 

JgO/rp Bl'-'^ /-^-At 8jiW tfiJiVi .r«;3i- <:Vi». \;r: r-on ©di SfclG,7T0q 

"io oeiogB exit lo QSi'*' '^■"■-^ t.s iicld-laoei ni a-rw "•♦-"t »-«.->■ fi.„v/ -^ (-,-„.,.' 



June 26, 1936, to say that such decree was final as to the axiount < 
of noney for vvhicii Parsons should, be held liable to the cor';^ oration. 
im appeal from ohat decree would haTe settled nothing, as no court 
could pass Tipon the questions involved until the accountiu?; had been 
taken and tho evidence pi^esented as to the nature of such expejiditures 
and the purposes for which they v/ere laado. It was the determination 
of this that lecessitated the accounting, and it was tho necessity 
of the accounting which made the decree of June 25, 1936, inter- 
locutory. ITo rights of the parties appear to exist, except such as 
were incident to the accounting itself. 

Appeals should not be taken pieceneal. As stated in The People 
V. Stony Island Savings Bank, 355 111. 401, at p. 403, "A decree is 
appealable only vvhon it terminates the litigation between all of the 
parties on the merits, and when, if affii-noa, the court which rendered 
it has cnl:" to nroceed v/ith its execution. ■' Axid farther, at p. 404» 
"But if a decree provides that jurisdiction be retained for the future 
deterriination of aatters of substantial controversy betv/een the 
parties, it is not final." There is no question in this case but that 
the decree reteined jurisdiction for the future deternination of how 
raicn, if anything, Parsons was to be held liable for, to the corpora- 
tion. This was the sol^ controversy between the parties and hence 
it is evident that the decree of June 26, 1936, v/as not, a final decree. 
Since the decree of July 27, 1939, from which this appeal is taken, 
treats the decree of June 26, 1936, as being final and conducive 
bet\/oen the parties, it is erroneous. Tho authorities referred to 
in the abovo case, .and in r>mith v. Binige, 35o 111. 229, are illustra- 
tive of, and conclusive, '.:ith respect to tb.e above questiuns. 

As we view th? decree of June 26, 1936, in the evunt an appeal 
had been taken therefroH and affirmed, there would have been nothing 

6. 



.cClv+S'iO'-.r'ic 



col • 



t • ■ 



i5 0X' 
,©STOC. 



J 3d 



the trial court could have done tovrard proceedin™ ?,dth the decree, 
until after the accounting had heen taken and report of the faster 
filed. The fact that ths court by the former decree held that 
appe!! Isjit conpany was entitled to have an accounting as to certain 
itens Ox expense charged by Parsons, did not produce a situation 
where it can he said, that it followed as a Ratter of law, that 
anythinf™ was due and owing by Parsons, to the corporation. The 
reference to the I'laster was made for the purpose of determini.n3- t?iis 
Q_ueGtion. Thus v^e find that Katters of substantial controversy in 
issue between the parties, were not determined by the decree of 
Juno ?&, 1936, and could only be deterMned upon the account inp. 
This is manifest frora the decree itself, as it reserves Jurisdic- 
tion of the case, pending the outcome of the hearing before the 
I'iaster. Thoreforo, vjq do not consider the reference in this case 
to have been an execution of the decree, but only preparatory to 
the rendition of a final decree. 

The decree of Jiily 27, 1939, from v/hioh this aupeal is pro- 
secuted, is reversed pjid the oaii.so raxaanded with direction that 
the trial court proceed to consider the exceptions as filed to the 
Master's repoi't, follov/ing which, a final decree shall be rendered. 

Reversed and remanded with directions. 



,n Dj..yor> Jii.fo« X3Xi: 
.tm/ooo« ed* TO ' - 



'.Ir'a rid" .^no :*■ * ■:)T':' 



■ ; 1 • - 



©!3S« SiiW at •0fl(«6'" 



.eo-xo«£ l£0j 



.t^r 



ii.i teb:. 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

SECOND DISTRICT J ' I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



Cleric of the Appellate Court 



/&^P0%^, /) „/ I 

/ / i I > / ISUFKRIOR CO'ilf, 

/ i c \^ \ COCK aoimfXt 

/ *pp.u.«.. ) 305 I. A. 4 86 

MR. PKKSIDIKf JUSTICE MAfCHETf HFJLlVfF.Fi) fKR OPINION OF fICf O^Slf , 

thle ap:;«al li pending on r«35«arln#: gz<«nit*d on pstitloa of 
tlifl plaintiff. The aotlea in th» trij»l court wa« in 0lmne«ry for an 
Injunotion to raetxHtin d«f«nd&nt8 from maintaining piekets at plain- 
tiff's prtmifl9i» Tbo Mil ohangod th« picketing v«« with inti»ida- 
tiOB, tfer*at» and vlol^noe, 4 prelijnln&ry injunetion issaed at 
prayed. *%» SefefiiSmate aA«vi»r«d a4laitting the 8iaint«'n&no« of tlie 
piekete bat denying threats, Intimidation or violence and olatiffilng 
ttnder the Astl-Injunetion >tat\ite (111. State Mtue stat»,, eto«p, 4S, 
II, par. 2a, 3?. 1649-1&50J Lawe of 19S8, p. 378, Ssilth-Hurd Ana©, 
State,, ehap. 46, ^ap, 2*, p, 1S8), ttee pieketinir *«« lawful, ffee 
oattse was referred to a Matter, who took the evldenee ttn^ rejported, 
finding: the avewsente of the anetrer m»et«lB«<S, r«eo®».«ndlag the dls- 
«olHtio« of the in^unetion and dienieeal of the a9i«»n«&ed bill. Oh- 
Jeetiona by plaintiff before the Master upon the hearing before the 
Chaneellor stood aa exeeptions, v<»re everrttle<5 hy Master s.n& 
Chancellor and a deeree entered an recommended. Plaintiff appe&le. 

Section 1 of the /intl-Injunotlon *\et px^ovldeej 

*Ko reetralning order qt injunction shall he granted by 
any court &f thle iit&te, or by a Judg« or the Jud#;©{? thereef In 6ny 
oaee Involrlng or groving out of a di spate oono#rning terisg or eon- 
ditions of eaploywiat, enjoining or restraining any person or per- 
ffione, elthi^r eii^ly or in conoert, from terminating any relation of 
employment or fros eeaslng' to perfora any work or l4bor, ©r fr©«a 
peaceably and without threatr* or Intlsldatlon recoaaeadlng:, aivising, 
or pertttftdlnii oth,#r« »e to do j or fro» p^i^aceftbly and vithout threatt 
or intimidation belnt upon &ny public utreet, or thoroifcRhfare or 
highway for the pun>©«e of obtaining or eoiaaunieatiag Infomatlon or 






88J^.iClG08 ' 



"^o iisoiifi#*q[ lift J^fHA^ BsJhiatifrz «• ?;: «! Sj^qm/k ntitf 

««Alii^arAi ti$t^ taw 3^il»«»iq mIY i^«y«*J[» XXM «MfT .»<m1« > ii» 

«« b9tnnt aclioaultil Tt«nl«ll»*iq A •••iiviolv bun »tnwtdi ,iiol^ 

«ff 'ke •miM»ini»m ^di %aittltAa Antwtoji ■^luMitttA MfT .^y^ittii 

,d# .<iAii» «.8l«#e ««« ft#«»c .in) ^nntA^e a«X#MirliiIwtaA w» %9Atm 

.oflfiA JHtrH^.^aiRrS «8TC .^ ,«SfX \9 twaJ {OesX-t^X ,<t ,«S •««<{ ,XS 

•jiIT « Jiaw ^iMaTftit M^ «(MX .<( ,«S .lum «8* .^ajio «.•*«}'< 

>-aJtl> 9dr gfiXAcianKeoa^ «befii«9tua nawana mdf lo afoaawvis aitir sflitaJt) 

>:rw .XXitf ftft^dieHUK •!(# to XAtaloaiik baM uottoiutl:^! $ta^ to aetiul^ 

nfit <rrol»<l ii«i^u«w( •At if#^0 i«#a«9! ad* atotetf ytttatMli vf aaolfea^ 

itaA •s*;ra«^ X"^ i&aXtrs'saTo n<w ,aAeX$qa*xa aji dooiTR loXXaanadO 

»ai««qqa IllJi .^aMaawoa**! a« ft<ne9»(a aa^d** a ftsA «seXiaonajfO 

'.awfeivotq itaA coi^MurtnI-l^«A «dt to X a^l^oaH 

t«l J>a?na*«| ad XXaffa notiptiplot to ncaftva sniaXai^a^ns cH* 
VIA m 1o9*ia£[t aasfttrt 9fi.'9 »>*» n^^ul m xit "^ ,a#«JS •IH3 iv t^ut— y^K» 

M1QO to »m9f aniftt^o A to »«• sflXvMta %c ^lyl&rnt a«AO 

->^«»H to ttOBiifq %na > lo BAiJilatJi^ «»4iMrt6X<sa« ta anoitlA 

to neXyaXai %«jb 3ni?Ar.i«Sii^ Zics^ ,»^aafloa Hi sto \XtaXa iMllia tenaa 

,:^iJtoac««&«<t naltAftlni^ni ie ntMWi^ SuotSflitr ba* xXdAa««aq[ 
»r<Mi*X» be* xX(fJMk»«#« ««tt -«» T •* •< oa a«a<»o «iiiA«vr«a<i •«• 
*^«lj;lS»ei»^ *x© ,f»«i#s oXXdwq t«A »fiwj» 9«Xa<J n©X?AftX«l^flX •»» 



-g- 



to p««i.«i«ably and '6^1?kout threats of IntlssiiSatlou pearsu&d© aaor p«r«o« 
or p«r«a>ai! to i^ork or to abst-alis frxm working, or to ffsploy or to 
l>ft&eecibl|' aM •without threats or latlBl^etlon e«a8« to «mpioy Any 
party to a, lalsor dispute, or to r«c9as®f?sd,, »<lirlsa, ar p«rsu*^© otbj»-r« 
«o to do, * 



sTld^noe »he«r« ^e piolCjet«, Hob«rt MeLsod and Jos9ph 
Buzme, ¥er» aot ^Bjployften ©f the plaintiff oorporstion. They %^r« 
iiot pra«p#otiv® app'lioaiiite for esploysmsat, but >?«»r« Bie*sls«r8. of tli« 
deftndeat ualon and for aaay y«ftr« hA& not rendered servlo* a» 
J&nitorg. ?b©y testified, denying t&r«*ts» Intimidation or fore«, 
and th« Master found thes9 unlawful smthodtt had oat W@» un^^d. Tliey 
admit that in so far as possible a 'mcon&jury boycott " w&s eet«ibllfihed 
against plaintiff la atte»ptln|^ to Indueo the roi>air mux, tli« eoal 
(Baa, the sllksaa, tho garba^ aan* the laundry m&n, etc. to e«ase 
perforslnf their usual eervloes for plaiatlff and it» t^naats. On# 
of tli« piefeet* oooupiw'd th* alley In th« r«sr of tfee buildiiig j 
another tSs© atr«et in front of it intaroepting persons furnlsliiag 
servio««, goods, ©to, to plaintiff and its tenantB, aad in so far ae 
possible p«r0uad«d thess to I'^fraia from doing «o. 

th« building con«it(t(id of 37 on9«roon fuin!iifiih«d apartm«ntt 
in whioh about 76 p«rsonfl liv«d, Jt w^s a thr«c?-«tory briels with 
l^lisb baeooont. Plaintiff r«nt«d tha apartadnte fumlfiib«»4. 7b#re 
was one stora in the baaaaaat, 1%«i^ pioKot» \ter0 plaoad at plains 
tiff •« pr«.s8i««» on July 50, 19S7, Th#r« was no dltputo b^tweta 
plaintiff and any of its afflployees eoR€9rning tarss or ©onditlo^s of 
<»aploymffint at ths-t tiao or slno«». Mton £asluka«, a met^biisr of th« 
defondajit flAt Janitor* $ Union, tr&e then employed a? a Janitor. He 
eontlnued te fi«irv« until Karch 17, 1936, j^#n he wa« diseharged by 
plaintiff after aotlee, the Janitor work to be don« at tbe building 
did not re^mire ttkn full timi of a Janitor. Caelukaft served aad vae 
paid on tbe baals ef part ti»« sfitrvioe. He r«o«»lved ooapeneation of 
|75 per saonth. So fai' a« the eridenoe sfeowe, he did not «it any time 
oofi^lain as to the wages pal a or the eondlttone under wiJicb he worked. 
Uts) teFtlfied, bofr^ver, tliat tb® manaier of ^e building asked bins to 
render oertaia kinde of Kerviee whiob he told the aaaafer wae against 



VIA XOitK^m ot ••«•• ffoX^Abintti^iv hj0i£rjhr Asa t<MA«o«»q[ 

,cJb o# 0a 

9tii to ait»tf«««i •ii««i iuii ,^a*MtoXqm* *tol ttottsilq^* 9t lS99qi99%(i #«A 
•A «»iTi[«* fMn*ta»nc f«ii AAd vi^at VUMB ^o1 £«• isoliui tfM»&it*t»ll 

^•££f »&««iy it9»ti $«« h9d 9bedi9m iffing&Uut 9991U bmtnt %949mM tift tm* 

X«09 9dS ,fiUM liJmn «<i? «&Ad&fli 9S •^^Sqa9tt9 Hi tltSnliiklq fafilas* 

Mia.«e etf «ol« ,iift« x:«Jbiuf«I 9iiS ^cum 9%attnM^ 9tit ^BMstllm 9df ,ium 

9ft0 .Hindis*; tifi boM tlliatal^ tol a»ftirx»a iMfai/ ilaill ^nijnoVt*^ 

;i>C!i- £Xu<f ^ftr lo nars !»iU nl \ilXX« mH 6«XqwaM ajTiiifo/q m& !• 

^flZdalflix^') «noat«q j^f<i90^9tBi il 19 ^flovl Ai ^<irxfa <Mii9 *cailtf<uui 

«« <tsl 00 ni bfuft (S^nAnat a^i &«« ttl^aXaiXq al .ata ,9freo$ ttaoXtmaa 

•«« BffiaJ^ «e*{l atvCiwx al icaxlt jbttbAsataq •Xdfiaaaq 

m^v^r* '...:-' ^j9 l^»xiaIir(Art ai»«^-afl« T$ to ib«tiilaB09 t^fxthlluA 9SX 

iitlM ^t^ti t'io^»-«9^i^ 9 •*« #1 .X>ariX aaoairaqf <ST ^irodT* 4ol<fM' ai 

a«xftdf ,J>»djtia'tt}t »tn9sa'%9es9 9^ b9iti9% VtlSnlMLI .tnaoiaaatf ltaiJ^.t 

>^X£.Xct ^A 6»oaXq 9%9^ ataialq aaadt .^aasaa«tf ad^ ml arota ana a«v 

0»»vrta«f •;fuf[9l& 9a aav atariT .TCeX «0S vX«^ ao aa»X«»T4 t*ttif 

lo itrns^tti lh(\99 10 sfi*!*^ ^nlinatMioa aoaxeX^iffia 9ti )o xaa &«» ttXteJUXf 

9iit lo tftdvatt A t«&i(0XaA3 aoloA .aoala 10 aoX^ ^•trijr fa ;rna«i<>Xqp* 

»H .<xotlfljiat ft 9« fiax«X<j»a fi«ir a^Bv «ff«lflt; a*nomaAl. ;raX1 S'/iaAaalaA 

tc" feasM,«if»»X6 «ftw arf ff-ffe? ,?w?<?X ,tX &9*tt» Litnu ar«a« e* ^aimX^aM 

-^thliud 9&t ia *ao& «t itlBMi 9^ ,99tt9n %9$Ja tlX^aialf 

«A¥ i^OA •d^vsan «*jtuXa4^ ttoa'itMkt « 1w «Bij^ XXnt «fii^ «^X»^«^ jToff l^iJ> 

lo 6«i^iMiiii«')^MK». i^av'laa '' .ii9iTtt>9 ^*&tS t'mil \» aiaMf »dt ao Mj^i 

•^T©w »idk iioXrtv t3'Ao« 9AoXi}XJ^R«a «ii* '• ' aJAX^jWO© 

,_j jg^ij . ;i,aia »M . ■..3T«adsS ,i«»XtX*a«t «a 

t»Ai»aa 9AV twMiuM 909 kl99 9A HoXiitf 99i'<rt99 lo aJboXal iiiajr<xa« xateav 



tlid union rul«$. The pipoof d9«i net c^ow wh«tb^r Vemrm im.» any 
qtt4U(>r«l about thl« &r ^^«th»r K^slultas yA« Al^ok&x^ed far tlM^t 
i««toa. At any x%te h«» made no pretest »^in«t hi«i di««hftrf«* M-« 
hftt not jfenkftd for r«iaet&t«!s«nt. A subsequent state»ent by plain* 
tiff** pr««l4«>nt iaaioftt«« Keelttkat w*« thought to b« negliirent, 
and tliat thli \m» &tm of th« i<«««oa« for dlioharge. Th« &of«ndjtnt, 
ualon itae not ooiiis»laln#dl about his disob&rge or &»Jk«4 £'«linstat«!n»nt. 

3«for» th« Offiploya«nt of Ka«lttka« w»m t«Mn&inated in l%rob« 
1933, plaiiotiff Installed a iuppos^d labor-saving dotrioe kneiifi as an 
autoaatlo stokar, doflgnod to perfore aateiianioally th« «ork of 
feeding eoal into th» fumae«. The plaintiff iaforiRed Ka«lukai of 
thla and teat It voold rondor lete Janitor etrvie^ neooftaary. <«bea 
the OB^lciyaMint of Kaclitkas oadad plaintiff anpley^d a Mrs, Vie^nt^ 
to porform otrtain mrvloot in oonneotion «'ith the i^^rtnant^. Hrs^, 
Violeory also took u|>o» barsolf th« duty of sh^trciling ooal into %t^ 
stoker, s^ it the wife of ii^llliaa viokery. Together they oeoupy an 
a|»art«ent in the bae«a»nt of the building, ^^he ie paid ^&0 p%r trtonth 
for her eerviees. Th« lm«baad« ^illiaoi Violiary, aleo render b eaeual 
Mrvioee in and about tho building t^cn and. a« requeeted. He dratre 
no fixed salary or wagae* His eospensatlon dofMinde on l^e aiMunt of 
eorvioee rendered, Meither Mr. or Mre. viokez^ hare isada any ooo* 
plaint ae to their wages or the conditions under idiioh they weili. 
Meither of theia Wlons* to the defendant union. n:)» evideoee chowe 
(and ic not oontr&dicted) that one of the piekete incited Mr. Vi«tk#ry 
to Join the union. He inquired hew nueh it would eo«t and was told 
laifi. Mr. Viokery replied th&t he could not afford it, 

J'uno 2X, 1937y due Van Heek« seer«tary*fliaaa|F«r of the de* 
fend&nt union, wrote to Mr. Holnes of the plaintiff eorporation that 
an agreenent had b««n entered into between the Chieago F^al Eetate 
Board and the Chicago Flat Janitor' » tmion, t^ooal Mo, 1, Kpeelfyinf 
that all buildin^e eared for by ether than the amifir auet have the 
eervioee of a union Janltorj that this buildtinif was being »«rvio«d 



,;tc %0O£& B»v tJuCcriiitl «WA«iAAi jrAii&ia»9(| a'ttl^ 

^in&brmt^ 991ft *i«t anosj^t *ttt tt mo ^mtt nliSt tJitft Ana 

.la«^£!»»«#»aifti ^«:;i»> 'Siiii9«l6 tltf tMKTa bAfllMX^ea ^cw a«i{ flviittf 

,£ia^M «l &«#4Uilan;«); i^ tfiir&J^nttS lo ffiMtxoX<jft« v^ «ico1:»K 

^; tfiA9l<ra<feM »^0^»^ 6t bttitwh ,%«»iroi9 oit«»«f«a 

>» »*«»X»aU b»inelBl YJl^ula/q arff .*9wrrirt «» efnl !«©» s«Jf**«^ 

r. :i .^fjaaifto^n nntvi^ti To9ijeuit **s^ t«ftiian 6Xtf^<tf ti fiutt Sua aXift 

. ' 4 .»}it««fT»q» tidt datm AOl99«fifi««> Hi ••©Jrtaa ftX«t^«e «^«tit#() •! 

9di elni Uoe ^ellvresta ^« xtuft aiff ll»«n«f «oqtf #a«t atX* rK»i(9iV 

t<EirM» tfti^ *f»r{f afs^ .\rt«l9lV caXiiiv ^ •llw ad} ai 8d£ .iK^dfa 

ixtotB ri» .iq al Mf6 .BiilAlitftf mU 1o taa«<»«^ atcr Hi ^a««r«i«» 

!«»««» a ^.ifi^n^'i oafA ,t^a:C6lV naixrisr (AoMniinf Mft .aaafTiaa n^d tot 

«y-s^B »1! .&»#3ftvp9? ta an* Mxfw aaXfiXiwtf ailf timra &nA r1 aa«XvrcM 

if ne ai^/mqaA freliaaaaqme alH .a«SM 10 x^Un ftaxlt dn 

-:>cp vi-- *»«« ar** ri»<*Xt .©1* 'lo ,'«* tatfflass .liataftAa^ aaoiviaa 

.ifsow ^*rt? «(9i£S!f laftrtu aireX^iAfloa ad* ito 8as*» tlawSt ot aii ietkX^ 

%*(>dt »«ff#Blva arfT ,atitttit inAhn^\*h a«t# «> a;^oX«<f ttafl* 1© •xa^tflaM 

«s«iV .♦s^ 5atlTDX s>a«9lq aUf to an© »Atf* (ll>»Jtl&«^i»oo *o« ai fciwi) 

« fefwoo »rf t*i!J' AalXqant fx^^^Xf .''^ »tWi 

»««» '.'? 1c- •i?r^,;.?f*is-i{^A?»'»oaa ,iott! ittV too ,T5#X ,XS MSil 

ilihilAS.(i 9l!f to aaarXoR .^M wT a»o*tir «irOiit» ;rfis&Aot 

-s*jt?» f «.»J? 0T5**X«(& atft flaa«rtacr otflX B^rtititf fl»»<f *>»j! ^itacoo^^ia «a 

•^i7*#«»<^, ^f ^litt r«»o,if ,ffoX/i9 a^tofifotl **r« 08««»Xi^ #rW ftn* JHraolE 

^xCr irad» ta^e xcf rtot btnut tf^thliud IXm tndi 
L''f?i.vt^9 j^iad aa^« iir.l6XX«rrf »!/(* #*rf* lioJXftAt naJtitii a to aaolr^da 



•4- 

Isy a non-union ffian, the l«tt«r atatftd: ^Coop^r^tion pl*elnf anion 
J«.nltor this bialldLln^f gr«stly apppeol&t«d liy thlB ©ff le«, *♦ Flatntlff 
repli«4 J-uae so, 1?»3?, th&t it hftd n© ikfretassnt vltte. tte« 0hl©.«go »#«1 
Ktt«t« SoATdi tlUit tius property lutA be«n %rned oror te tM oor- 
por&tlon ttng»r S0Qr«« of the U. ». Hstrlet Ootirt, and tfe&t the bulls* 
ing «»• tb«n ©pereted uniSer th« d»ere« by tlw ©im«»r«. ffe#r«a|>sa, ttm 
plekftt* trere plfte*6 About th« pr«ttle«». 

It l8 eont«nd»d in bclmlf of pl&lntlff th&t tbe siridsne* 
shewt tb«r« w&« ne labor dispute vlthin th« leaning ^f th@ estatutt ait 
tim tla« of th« plok«ting. It is pointed eut th&t Kaelt^as vag di«* 
«iMtrg*d aore than flf ta(»n sdnthc prior to tho tia^ tk« piekoting 
bogan, and that n«ith«r h« nor the union sada any ooa^Xairit about tl»e 
disoSmrgo. 7h«z^ ie no ol&iai that the %!ork nooontMix^ to b» done 
about tboao prosiaee rftquiroc tlu» fall tiim» of e Janitor, fhtt Job 
at best wan about ona* third of a Job, ae ahovn bjr th« faet Kaeluicaa 
alao took oar« of two other Wildings, fhe vork to be done «rai leac 
after the inetallatlen of the etoker. The eaiplojrBtent of a Janitor 
wae ntiyr^T a»re than eaaual in its nature. Kaclukae had never atked 
to get his Job back. 

Itie oontpoverey whloh eaueed tSie pleketing of the prewiaee 

was brought en by the request of the union that this eaeual i>mTk 

should be done by sone aeaiber of lt« organisation, ttnd apparently it 

vae eatlcfied if Mr. Viekev^ vrould pay iues to the union. Doei? thie 

dispute rise to the dignity of a *labor dlapute'* within the neaning 

I 
of the ^ti-lnjunetion etatutet The anewer, we think, au«t be in the | 

negative. In the firet plaoe, the diepute is f^t betveen the en- 

ployer and the es^loyee. Heoent easen eon r truing thii; sttatute hold 

thia ie a neeeseai^ prerequisite to application of the etatute. iio 

ea^loyee ha« made o<»3plaint or ie nov oomplainini. This i« fatal to 

the defenae offered, 

3^» ^^IntK. et al. v, Agwrloan federn tion of Le.bo.r. d72 111, j 

91* 22 K. I. (gnd) 057, the Supreme eourt of our etate paeeed on this 

l^lnt. In that oaee, Swin^ and others filed their bill to reetr^n fj 



''--to? > 1? u^ 'i<$ro 6»aiti? fid^tf 6m( V^*<9nH <mU fad* iMmo4 ft^a^vS 
l»c> wiiif fjail]^ ibns «#i|}90 fQ/t^tl <^ To •••(••li <x«te« iioJtttfVMK 

nail •jioiq ftzitf ««li mv 0^ Y«ii« ^dtaom a»#tlll wutf •io« A#||iiJMi» 

tfol «^ .•s<»^iM£t ^ '^o 9mXt liny nAt ««Ti»prs •Mii«#%4 ^Mlt ^wocto 

saKiiIaM ^*»i «£Ur \4 ffwAiii •« ,tfot • to frxliit««ao >if«tfA •«¥ laatf f* 

• fl9X 9AH «e«i& •<! 9$ ifV^M 9tGl ••ifilAXIutf lUUft* «fwf )e ri4i> JtOW 4Hli« 

U»4tf 4ot oitf »•« «9 
9/& Jb««if4Mi M914M! tUKtv^staoe tiff 

1 Tr;ri9'£jscce« Mm ,Aaili&aZft»9to tfi to %Mte«a %mw \d «toft t4 itXxNkite 
^natasi mii at «•»& ^«<i ftXifOW ^«uf»IV •tH li ^itiitA» 9«w 

•:;i ,.'^.r ' .}ytA« eilT ttltftjtta a«ltMirpBl-ltM •d» to 

"C^ im M^twi 9«a sX «;riK|aid Mil ,ooaX<j Init acU ii£ .avltrajiaMl 

i^iexi »?ii;r«:?f! 9XdM i^ltfi^tAoo aaAM taooo^- .9«%oXiiA«i ttett itoo ntctoXq 

,»^«}ft' Q a«ut9r«aiX4(^ 4Mr alXaliqHraou^ VV's^oooii a kX aX/Cif 

o^ X«;tat «X aXfiT .liUAiAXqpsoo voA aX 'xo IaXaXiiooo oMa «Mui aattol^voo 

.£»>r«9tto ftsitatftJb Aitf 

ttt»%t%*t 9t £114 rl^Oi MXXt anEfuttA ft«A lAltHI «AAAt #Altf Al ..^xsXoq 



tfa* a#f«aa&nt uni98 tr&» pleketlng in front of plaintiff®' pliMMi «f 

bufinese. ¥!h« i6f«!%4£»te msved to strlltt; tli« motion w&s gr«fit«d, 

aadi th« suit SiiiBiilefiMsS for wAnt of «^ulty^, fhM fsete Avsrrtd in tl^« 

bill v«r« that tiMi 4«fendABt ualon a«a(%i&4«d that pl&intlff r««|ulr« 

Ita •aployeei to Join It, jsone of th» «aploye«»© i3elon^ed t& tli» 

litniea; no»t of tlusim wl»h«d to 'belong t» It. !%;« taplojr«($# w«r« 

KAtlefled with tlMlr ttftgea, l^ourfi Aad vorkinf conditions, this court 

r«T«peod tbe Jn^pMnt of ^« trl«l ^sourt and granted a eertlfloate of 

Ifflport&no© to tlift B«ipwi«i» eourt. (£f8 111. Aps?. S3, 18 H, I, (gnd) 

8^. ) To the eont«>ititloii of t3i« defeadasits that ^« InjunotlOA vas 

prohibited by tJie Aatl-InJ«aetlon t&tuto, Vtut &upr»«« ^urt polatad 

out that tfee eontz^ry had Just b««n held In ^,(ira<Slo»iiB o or >>aiyie.s,. li}9 , 

V. MlUKwagon >3rltrtr»' Uifilon of Qhioago. Mo. 753 . 371 111. Z-77, ?si U.E. 

(Sad) 303, and ftaidt 

■^The ofiinion la that tta«« tnie fll«»d ii(Fhll« t^e i^r^sant «pp«&l 
was pendlt^ mi& In it «w i%«ld tlia aet of 1926 'hs.;; no ftppll^ation to 
oa««s vh«rein l^^#r« l« no disputo )»«t«r«i«n oatployftr and sti^plojtfe. In 
tliat easo all of %h» ar^ui^^nt* provantad %>y the appellants la thlft 
aaee wei^ fully eoneldered and it i« nsm uanceaeeary for mm to re* 
p«at «lwt we th«n eaid. '^ 

ttMire ims a dlaaenting oplaloa el ting eaeofi in ^loh it 

had been held la the eonstruotion of a eeawi^at elnilar statute that 

no employ <?r»eBq;»loyef» relationship o«ed exlet. Lauf v. ■■thinner »l 

C<M«p«ny , S03 B. s, 823, 98 i. St, S'ya, as L, E4. 87gj j^^^w tie>a:ro 
Alllanee ▼. f^anitary ^>re«»py Co. . 305 U. S, 86S, S@ fu St. TOS, ®8 L, 
Kd. 1012; ;>enn v. file Ujerf Union . 301 U. S, 4fi€, BT J^, St. 8S7, 
e«8, SI L. JSd. IS*2®, 

the dee le ion of the Sttpreise oeurt of thi» etate 1«, of 
ooiuree, blndlB^ ^on this eourt, and the deoieions froai e^er Jurie- 
dletlons are not oontrolllng. 7h@ 'Supreme Oourt of the United .^tatee 
has denied oertjorajp ;! in the MeadovB^or aaee, so that the question 
in thle state now beoomes one for the legislature. In thoi Mefdow - 
moor oaee the Supreme court distlnfui thing tiie ease of -^tuTm v, l;'llg 

"1% is clear from t^ls language the court -mrb limiting Its 
vleirs to the partieular statute und«sr oonffideration &ni\ indis&tlng, 

in the eleareet language, %hM% the privilege of ploketing', even 



0^i&!P»ir tltfnlmlq tM0t k^ bm m n k iimuat tmOunt 9asf tmm •«•« Xlltf 
9jBnr 9t b^Tgmtta «A»\»j^ap»* «<(9 to 4Mioif .ti mot •' tt««tox^» %tj. 

^a»ot> vl .r .tnoifUtaM ifllsfnotr ftiu vntroK tAflqiflw llttH^T iltflw Jft*£t9JMtii 
i'Sn'^) . >r ,W .qtjA .IJCZ MS) ,put^0 MMPf^vl MlT ef ^mMMt^n^fU 

.ml .»^MJ<fl ^i#<»iift««»f «i JIlMi fl#»4 #«l tAi tWitSM <M» ««<l* M» 

,m «xii i9€ «i^ tfw tfanM^imr It MW *iifrM mHMWilli^ 

rftim jMu ««oe imm) 

H ott m»A 95QI 1Q t9M mta hl^A mm it ai 1m» Tf^lba^i^ a«« 
-rlqs* tfmrtti dtM^Ift «« •! rii«i» Ji,t*««*» ••*«) 

- -;w yr^a ml fk JMUI Ws«lli«fl«# tXlifi Mow MM 

ri A»tHif ttl ««t«9 9III910 if«lalqo 9aitfl»t«lA « new «iMtT 
^aH7 9tui»jM ^«/iji(i« jAiJycMMa a to ao2ii>intutt99 Mltf Hi Mad n«i»<!l h»d 

-.-.^ «S98 
to ,:?ti id's to ttiioe «ar*^q»^- ftiiir to «olald;»^ <i»i;;^ 

-"slaui 'i9;i^c 2;c*sl «BOXtXeo£ Ad:^ Aflui ,y<«jfM tliU aoq^ SAXJ^altf tsa'xtfoo 
'. u mis to fnxfoD •flronc<iiiS oifT .noXXXoi^iioo itm «%o aooXtftXA 

"SS^S!^ "^ fi^ ••ttftaXaX^tX Ofiir t9\ •«• ao«ooo<r woo «J«^a aXjf^ oi 

»X^il ,y n(^»^- to #sftci - '" -»--^r -•*-"' *-j?©o ftm»tQoB aftl »a»o toil 



-6« 

«oraiit%«d or Intended to tot u»ed for tb« purpose of l^eftHtift^ 
««eond&r7 boyeottB. Many oth«r eft««s on both side* &r« @lt«t4, 1»tt 
In vi«w of the d«eiBloR« of thie oeurt eon«5f!«snlng boyeotte aiid. pro- 
hibiting th9 Int^rferene* vltJs eoastltutlonal rights?, poirit«d otit 
herftin, the &et«! of the apr-isllees, In oossblning, &« «*i «iggr«g'aiitl©» 
of iRdivl^u&Is, t© pleltet in th« manner Seserliwui «nd found hf ttm 
aaeter, v^^re uttlavful fests and Justified ^e ifieu«n6i» of a p>«raiufi«nt 
InJUAOtion as jreye^, " 

*t t^ink, too, in this oaae tlsuif ffaet«r In fln^nf Vae 
pi«ik«tlng WAS datlrely p«ft«9ful oT«rl@eltftd th« undf>nl«^ t«stlBiony of 
%^iXli».« Vlck«77 to ths effeet ttiu^t ei^ of thi» pieket@ (M«l,«M} eiiMt« 
to Tleksry'i a|)iu*tffi«iit In th« inaildiai im4 e^Aid th&t he CViekury) 
^wo^d Join union or ale*" &iid "Ifou do»H w»nt as to toomte tb« ^^laoo 
do you*?'* 

fho Ju%»«nt will b« reT«r«»d and th« oau@9 rt^isiadod mXVx 
dirffctione to set asid* th« ordftf disoolving t%i9 iniunotlon and di«* 
aiesFlng t£b« bill, 

MoSurely, J. , ooneuro, 
O'Connor, «f . , dlisaents. 



I'J 






•a»wa;4jsl iiU iall-iJii^j, ~Ai. aJo^ . .'.i^J 



* 



nuUB 



"fu^x oh 






s 



40436 



I Appellant, 



I 



▼»• 



i^PSAL FROM SUflHIOR COURT 
-v^--^ COOK COUUTY. 




I OUB VAS HECK, CalOAviO IJ-AI 

V JATSITORS Ui.ION, LOCAL ii(h*- 

I JOaBi'ii iiUilUS, 

I AppsfLlaes. 



^^^. JU3TICB 0»C01i^0H DKLIViSKID TaS-JDPIiMlOIJ OF XiOi C0UH2.''^xJ 

.£'.^.--^-.»«..^^.....^.^..«-.-«»*---«---*^^ 

Plaintiff comoratlon owns and operates a three-story 

store and 37 furnished 

apartrnents of one room each with Pullffian kitchen and b-ith, in ^shich 

atout 75 tenants live. It filed its bill i^lalming it was involved 

in no labor dispute; t*iat its buildin.v was being picketed by raem- 

bers of defeniarits' Janitor's Union wuo by coercion and intimidation 

prevented other busineee concerns from transacting business with 

plaintiff, and plaintiff prayed that defendants be enjoined rrom 

doing the acts and things complained of. 

Defendants aunswered the comolaint, averring there was a 
labor dispute between tne parties, admitting that the building 
was picketed by members of the def en 'ant Union and denying all 
wrongful acts of coercion and intimidation, 'ihe case was refereed 
to a master in chancery who took tue evidence, made his report 
f inkling that no illegal acts were coiiuaiitted by defendants and recom- 
mending that the suit be dismissed for want of equity. Objections 
and exceptions to the report were overruled, a ciecree entered in 
aocordance witii the reconanendation of the master, and plaintiff 
appeals. 

The record discloses that in 1936 and for sorae tiiae prior 
thereto plaintiff employed a Janitor to rto the ordinary work around 
the building, and there is evidence that he waa discharged Jtaroh 



5e*o* 



.il£4tt<iA 



O O 't" •i-i* JL ^i_s= ^, I3 I 

fe«yXovai tflvr ^ * .»vlX ■Jnsfl' ^^s 

-jj«ci ^cf b^^f^^oiq ao^scf saw ^jniftlitK^ b*1 Jfiri.t ;»;fi/<T8iI; Tocf/ i 
aoiJjRblmii. 'iw9oo >cd odw no-' J iac?l, • eitnef n«>l«6 lo a'i9if 

tUQil bmalQlaB »1 3;t£Utftn8l«* *firi* !>9X«''t9 'i*^' 

.'to feanicsXqiBds »s^- ato» 9tl3 ^atoh 

e Bcv srodi :^ttttx9r» « tal^sloiaoo 9di boiswatu a^ajobn^'tsQ 

%niblXiJ6 9ri;f l«x{i 8al;^d^imf>« ,qel;fieq »sit n»ew*»cr »*wq8lb iocr«X 

1X0 gfllx^o^ J^f^ nolnU ^cuiMu»lsb edi to tasiiffldm ^cT b«ieioiq csw 

fc«<(t<*'t0'x 8jaw »ax .noi^«blnu:*iil brm aolor^oo lo «toA liiTii^noTW 

tfrtocjQi Bid •bsm .oonabXvo ©xi^ 3I00J oxtw '?:a8on«xlo nl rtsi^BBflt « ol 

-moo9T ban aJruabn ,'iiil!'i..oo ••i«w a^ojs Xas^XXI on * u(J snlftnil 

enoiiostcfO .\;*ijjpd to Samw lot besBliaeib ©rf ^li/a 9si) Ssdi anlbnsor 

ni b«»'i B .fialuiiftvo 919W Jtcocoi 8x1* o;f enol^qooxfl bnc 

Ja£ia 9xlJ 1:0 noJtJ"flbO9ram0E09i »xJ* ii-tlw ftonabTooo* 

,aXa*;<?q* 
^f,]-: isdi a8«oIoelt bioosi ©rfl' 

fcnuo'i/ maibiii o;ij :oSt:iel B haxotqr^ ""' ; ' ^ Xcr oio-xetli 

rini lb BfiW 8Xi J '9 3i »- aibliurf ftXlcr 



17, 1936, on account ol' inefliciency, as claimed lay plaintiff; 
while on the otxaer nand there is evidence to the effect that he 
would not perfonaa certain duties, claiming they did not properly 
belong to the function of a janitor", that afterward there was cor- 
respondenct between the parties, the defendants seeking to have & 
union janitor employed, while plaintiff's position was that a 
janitor was not needed hecauee in the meantime it had instalied 
an automatic stoker, the use of whioti rendered a great part of the 
janitor work unnecessary. Attached to the verified coHiplaint was 
the affidavit of Eleanore Vickery, in which she swore she was 
regularly employed by plaintiff corporation "as a janitreae or 
hou9ekeeoexl;n that the building was equipped with an automatic 
stoker and Incinerator in which tVie tenants deposited their 
garbage; that she was entirely satisfied 7'ith her compensation and 
working conditions, and that tlvere was no labor dispute. On the 
hearing Mrs, Viokery testified that the building used about 15 tons 
of coal a month during the colrlest weather and thai she ehoveled 
the coal into the stoker. 

Plaintiff's position is - and it offered evidence to that 
effect - that after the automatic stoker was installed it employed 
a houseiiiajn "who in addition to the inconsequential tirue in firing 
the automatic stoker, was employed in cleaning the building, or as 
a maintenance man"; that about 16 irtonths after thp janitor was 
dis!chai*ged a representative of defendants took the matter up with 
plaintiff with a view to having a union janitor employed to work 
at the building, and said that if Lr, Vickery, the houseman then 
esiplcyed at the building, continued to do the janitor work he would 
be reciuired to join the union at an initiation fee of ^212, and that 
unless this verp ^one deferidants' union would cause the building to 
be picketed; that June 21, 1937, the union representative wrote 
plaintiff that the union had entered into an af^reement with the 



9ti iBtli io^Tt* »iii o) •on«tJ:79 eJt armiii hojtd x^ilio tdS no nlittw 

\l19qq1q iOii blh \:»n^ ^aii&ljilo ^tBtiuh alsii^o ixno'iisq ion bluow 

-■xoo SAW 9fiit ibiAinLSi'lis iAdi itoitcuil e to aoiioaut 9di oi ^nolotf 

M %VAti oi snl>i:eoa a^^iiti&ae'tot) SiU ,«dJtJ-^i;«q Siii a»aw^9cr •oa»bnoq«ft7 

A J^Adct eaw aoi^ia oq s'lll^aifiXq «Xl/fw ,fcftxolQS(d lo^Xtuit nolou 

AaiJfi;taai bad ii ttsiJ-ii^sa »ii.:r ni: «au«3«cf I>«b9*a ^»a a«w loiXnat 

»AS 'to ^"xsq ^a^ia £ bsi9i>a»T iloM'^r to »6ii »i{;f itaio^e ottMsaotua am 

aaw {raiBXr.aoo toi'tlft ^df oi bod-OBiik .xiAea so a anu sT-xow •xoilnat 

asw axla •:cow« axte xloJtiiw al ^Y^xs^oiV aioruvaXS to ilraht'tim »di 

10 QBdliinat fi aja* ooi^aioqioo "ltX*ni«Xq \t<^ *axO-C<I«^ Y-C"'^»-C*'8«^ 

old^fiiaoJujB ae dtiv fiacqXwpa a«w gAii^Xlvtf axi^ imAi ["|;lx©q»ai»««oxI 



liexicT hediaoqaf) f;^xls^a# tii Aotdn nX to^aionionl Ana iBioiB 

bus x^oiJjeacoqiBOO 'xad il^Xv b»l'Utiis9 y;X»-xXln9 a«w 9Xla ^Ari^ ;as«<^'zss 

&rl;^ no .e;fijqalb tocfijl on e*w ©^sxW *«fW' Jbn« ^anoitXJbiioo ^aXTirow 

aaoi ex ^ifocfii fcaeu artJ^^XXwd axi* JfiXidr JboXtl^^ao^ xxr,AoiV ,a^M snXitA»ii 

taXaroxia ada ituH box t^AiMSv isabloo »ili £flXtjL<j) lUnom « Xi»oc to 

«'X92Co:ta ar{^ oi^aX X«oo axf^ 

iaiii 0.T eoasbivo f>o-xt»tt eo {^4 *>« - »i noX*Xao« a' ttl^nXjaX'i 

fc«.YOXqa!» il fcaXXfiJani 8«w T»aicJa ol^fijacfiw* esii i»t1ji imcli - ^o»tt© 

ii X«lc?ri8JJpaanooal afU od- noXiXW)* ni oifw" fuacieKwoil « 

Bf 10 ,3fiii>XXuor aiW aoXnaaXo nX baTjoXqajs aiiw ^-xaioite ol^TsiooJ^wi ail* 

sew io*XiXst 9tii %9i'tm Bri^noiH bl iuodia i&nii I'aam aoxusiwJnJ«ffl m 

diiv qw «**juffl sfii :i&oi »iaiiba»%9b.'Xo avX^«*a»asnq«-i « fcgaiJBfCooXb 

iiow o;t ftaxolqw* To^lnjst noiuu m ^alv&ti oi waiv « Aitw rtkiaimlq; 

twAi aBai9auoA atW ,Y»*:iio- T:i: ^«^3 fciea bna .aaXfrXXwcf ^Ai i* 

bXuef 9A Jliow -ioitn^i 9Ai ob oj iii.uai;taoo ,sni&XXjjrf ad* t£ ij9YoXqa«> 

}«u* baa ,8XS^ to 99t nol*«l^XnX am ia aoirw @Ai nXot o;^ beiXopot »cf 

oj "Jd 9ii* »8iJ«o JbXuow floinw «f*fWBl)»iataJb anofc aiaw aXri* 3a9Xn« 

.iw avx;txiJn9B£^'— ' --iau a<^ ,T«CX ,XS am/Ti fmdi jA^cTajtoXq arf 



s^r ,.., 



arid- rijiw ofasjflsa-ih -■ -^^ 



Chicago Real Lstrte Borrd, t'hich f.greeiaent specil'ied that ail build- 
ings operated ty faiyone other txiari tiie owner biusI have the ceivices 
of a union janitor, arid soufe^it to have pl&intilT employ a uriion 
jajiitor. 

Plaintiff siIbo offered evidence to show tliat about Julir, 
1937, a piclcet ws-.c sent to the building, who was later joined by 
another picket; tliat they v/alked up and down in the rear of the 
"building bearing a placard on which was printed, "-his building 
unfair to organized labor. Chicago i'lat Janitor's Union, Local 
Kumber 1 A. ^, i."; and tiia; t.iey stated to persons wno sought to 
Hiake deliveries and to do baainess with plaintifl's building tnat 

plaintiff was unfair to uuion labor. 

on 

oi'.TB, Viciiery testified tha^/one occasion i:'Urns, the picket, 
ran into the building, grabbed a ^^orjas.iui b^i the arn. and prevented 
the removal of aehes, ai^d said he would call out iiie tant. ''^'■'■'- clean 
up the situation; that on ariother occasion i.obert ^oheod, business 
agent of the union, threatened vsil^iaci Vic^ery, vho worked part 
tiibe at the building as tiaintenance u&u arid part tiii.e as jaiiitor, 
saying that unless the union's dei^and was i^et by hirin^^ a union 
Janitor the plac^ would be boL.bed. 

i'he picket, Bunis, called by def ei. darits, testified that he 
was sent to the building as a picket July 30, 19 37, wearing a banner 
on which v,'ere printed words to the effect tuat the ouiidin^ w&a un- 
fair to union labor, do dex^ied ne had tnreateijed anyone at tae 
building; testified taat he had talked to a ncuxtber of persons who 
came to deliver laundry and other supplies to the building and told 
them of the dispute, and tliat tiieee men being union Jien rei'used 
thereafter to deliver to the building. 

McLeod, called by defendants, testified he was business 
agent for tiie defendants for 11 years; that it was reported thers 
was a non-«nion janitor wor.-iing on plaintiff's ouilding; tnat he 



s. 



.•;. 't ^ 

diicf > — ... awofc fcaa qw l)«iIX«v. ^: .. , _. . ;.j^olq itriJocxa 

^iifb,-. „_.ii" ,b»inliq asw xleixfw no hiito.it.- /^ i^niii-'^J jnlMlucf 

Q^ iiV.i^aa Oi'..' aaoH'i?!' ■■.' a.^J :Jft ; . • .1 idcfouftt 

i'js, aslisvlXafc »ifA« 

no 

bsiatyiq b:t> jixa ©xi* ^rf aaaaito'fi & bs^dJii;^ ,gall)Xiucf ari* o^ak run 

t*j9io brt« an«i» "i^i •^'-■'3 ■'^■^"^ i)IiJow sd £>X£S ibiM ,k«ila*? 'lo X*.. i 

acanlaijcf «l>00il&^ oi8«oao xexl^oxus no J«4ii ;aolJ'aiJlXs ert^ qu 

tiuq, bejiiow wjiXXl? AaastAaifitf ,a«lm> 9sli to ;ta«jk« 

fio.tiaAt •« »iit-ii tiaq baa nAa »oasi»*ni ..tlbliud »xl* t« 9j;iJ 

noirtJj « aalilxi Yrf *•« ■«* bxwaiat a'aoicuj ad* aaeXau ^iBill 8ni>c«a 

,b9duodi atf AXi/ow j^oijXq arU^ to^loitt 

Qii i«fi* 1^9111*89 cT ,ad-a,:f I /tab xd b&llMO ,«t««a .Jaiolq e/ii 

i^jruui.: i: anl'xfisw .VtQX ,05 ^^Xijl lastolq a bjs ^aibXiua axi^ 0^ ^Taaa ■•w 

-luj E«vir iialbXiucf ariJ iBxit itoaVia »tit oi mbTow b»7aitti 010 w dottiw no 

axiJ ;t« aac^aa fiaiis^aeaii* J^il axi fcala'' .-iOrfaX noliUi ^-o ii«'t 

oxiw anoaiaq to i9(Smua a oi hnAiei bMtL •H SmsH b^l'tlia&i ;^aibliu(S 

bloi ban jialbLitJil Biii oi asiXqqua xsxito bam xtbaual fviiab oi aauso 

.bsauisa ma. uolmj salad £»fi aaaxl^ iaiii baa ^oiuqalb •di to aaO* 

,-%albJiii i laViXoB 0* te*l«eneri* 

aaawiaurf a* ^aia^i , oist v .boaO©- 

a'iaii* 4>e.^ioq9^ ««% iJt iadi ;£■!*- 



went to tha 'builling, saw iirs, Vicicery and later h^r huBbanl, Er . 
Viokery, came in; that the s?itness asked him il" h« had a union 
card and Vickery anawftred, "Uo." He derjied J'nreirig his wr^y into 
the Vickery e-parttient or that ue made any threats. 

There is other eridenee to the elTect tiiat o; one occasion 
the police were called to th«> building and I'ound iiums aric! the other 
picket in tlie alle^, drew their guns, arrested them and took them 
to the police station, tut no complaint was lodged against them 
when the facts 7.'ere explained* 

Considerable other ftvidence ol'iered by piaii tifl* is in the 
record t*;nding to shov-r that the picketn and other r«?pre3enta,tive9 
of defendants' union used threats and intimidation to prevent delivery 
of goods to the buillinw: or the remo-vsil of asiies, etc. Oi. the other 
side the evidence I3 to the effect that no such threat? or intitiida- 
tion rere indulffd in by the piexets or anyone else, 

V'« will not detail the evidence further. Xhe master went 
into thr faote sranewhet in detail, fii-din^, in substance that plaintiff 
had failed to Bustain its claim of tnreate end intimdation by & pre- 
ponderance of the evidence, I'he picketing was admitted but defendants 
claimed it w&s peaceful and taernfore ought not to be enjoined, be- 
cause of par, 2&, sec. 1, chfep^ 48, 111. Kev. titat^l937jC llie .J:Sp^ 
master saw and heard the witnesses teetify; his finding was approved^T^;^^ 
by the chancellor. In these circuiustances we are not a<Athorized 
under the law to disturb the finding unletis we are of opinion .x;.at 

it is against the laanifpst wei^nt of the evidence, Paeedach v. Auw 

, . , 

364 111./ 491; St&sch v. otaBchp ,'555 Hi. 5^1; x^osakowski v, ha,k.don , 
369 111, 252, 

open a careful consideration of all the evidence we are unable 
to say that the decree of the court is against the aiariirest weit^t 
of the evidence. The finding of the master and of the chancellor -.vae 
that the Picketing and prrsuasion were peaceful and lawful, and since 



e 



,t'A ^taedauH xnti t0ta£ fcn* ^^KjloiV ♦■•xk was ,anif»IJtA;d ^dt o) in9W 

o^fii Xr5w •jUI gflivicol t»»la«Jb eE ".oil" ,b»t*wiiajs ^•iolV ^^JB biAO 

floisjsooo sno lO l«d^ io»Tt* vxii oi •onftftlTs nsri^o si •'xsrf^ 
■x9ii;to en^ bnii stnud hnuo't Aoa ^aiMlud •/!} oi b»llm9 •vev toiloq sil^f 
mttdi tLoo^ baa mBAS bttSs'^tra ,bcuj:^ ilaAi yraib ,t^XI« ei^^ at tsiLoiq 
mvtiii isaijs^ii ba^bal m»M iaialqmao on Jhi ,aot)si3a eoiloq *ai oi 

•bsnialqx* •t9'^ tioat adS aadm 
!iiii ni ai 'itiJ- i bftie'tto 9oa»btra r&dio •IcfAnvtlenoD 

•svi^i^^n^cdiqvi iniiJto, boM ei»xolq bjcH imtiS wada o^ ^albctoi jbioo^i 
YivvlXel) tfldToiQ oi noi^tebiftti Jfli i>cu 9i»9itiS tosi. noinu ' Q;trusba»l«i^ to 

iaromi •xU sboos la 

-«^iIaJtJ•.^j: ao s^ffisidi' lioue on toriS ioeTt* ori;^ ■^oa»6Jtv» eri^ •bis 

•dsXa •ao'^ru: to etn^Lolq 9ili ^cf ai b«t3Xt^nl •I'lw nol^ 

't'liiai&lq iAdi 9os%ai9fSaM at ^albal'X ,li&i9b al isdweinoo aSoe't 9di oSai 

••aq A ^i aoiiabiaiial baa 9im9iiii 'lo ai«Xo ail iilnJioj^i oi b9llat kMA 

9iimb:i»'t9b tud bviilmb* aaw jniJaioiq "lifi .9on<^^iv9 ^rti to •oa«i»6aoq 

*3i ,b»nlotn'3 ttcf oi ^oa j£f^i;o dio'tfusn^ ibcui Iiils^Afq aaw #1 b9adaLo 

\^iQi\^iaiii ,r«H .XXI ,6f ^do ,X .09e ,*S .liSQ lo aauao 

jvoxqqa a£W aaXfeaX't ei4 ;xll;r»»l B«a8ea*iw arii^ biissri has waa icaJaaa 

JbasiiOiltuA tpn ^ta aw eooae;^a#u97Xo aaaxi- . ; oXXasaaxlo axIJ xd 

iasL: aoXfl-' i^^ a* aaaXnu jiaiRai't dxi;f d-i-j^iii, ocJ w«X erl* i^f^nu 

. aofc^^cl ..y XAeypajseoJi ;Xee .XXi tJcit. .aau^j^_ .v rAO^-^^cTo [i-'i;- ,,11^ *8£ 

.s-as .XXI cdc 

aXcfanu 9tfi avf aoaaBirs ari;^ XX« 'to aoxjjstsbisaoo Xi.';e'ie» ^a aou 

it^i.9V Jaa'UoBfli axi* taaijs;^ el *x«oa axf;r 'to aaioel) axf* ^fi^^ <<=' '^* 
a«v •loXIs.^aaiij axlj lo ba& isiaaoi 9di lo ^iolfenr^ - •' .aoaafclva axlJ lo 

,- . ■:^, , .iiiiQioJ^; »x*t +«■<-+ 





y the passage by the legislature in 1925 oi .sectsroti 1, par. 2a, 

chO^ 48, 111, Rev, Stat 4, 1937( Biicii piciteting and persuasion " ^ 
are not to b« enjoined* This is the ii-olding ei' our Supreme court 
in J'eneke Bro.^. _?> upholsterers '- ^ ifinior ^ 358 ill, 239. 

Counsel for plaintll'l" ii^ tneir repxy briel say, "Interfei^- 
ence with cuatoaiers, interference with persons with whom plaintiff 
hadl contracts, was the hasis oi' the coiaplaint, Througiiout t^e 
hearing plaintiff ■was vjilling, aiid is now willing,, to permit all 
the picketing defendants desire, if t.aey .vill coniine tneEiseive* 
to the front of the "building *i*d givit vent to the advertising 
caaipaign, "but contends the defendsuits' actions wtre, no m&tter 
what the defen.lants call it, a boycott." We thinji it obvious that 
picketing in front of the building, would serve little or no purpose 
for the reason taat apparently all deliveries were made in the rear 
and not in the fr^int of the building, 
' We are also of opinion tuat the pri:..ary purpose of the 

picketing was not to establish a boycott and injure pliintifi , as 
it contends, but on the contrary the building was picketed in an en- 
deavor to benefit defendants' union axid its isieaibers. 

Complaint is also made thai tne court erred in excluding 

evidence offered by plaintiff to the effect that some of the drivers 

of trucks who oame to deliver goods to or receive goods from the 

building told an employee of plaintiff wii&t tne picket had said to 

on 
such drivers. Some of this evidence waj|/objeotion ruled out as 

being hearsay. We think the point made is not of iaaportance in 
view of the fact that a number of drivers were called who testified 
in Bubetance taat vii^n they were advised by the pickets of the 
union's complaint they refused to go to the building afterward for 
the purpose of receiving or delivering goods because tiiey were union 
men, and under th-.ir union rules ought not to "run" a pictet line. 
And it is Shown that afterward some deliveries were not ..ade because 



^i«c» »4i«>*iqfci5 i«o to aaiM ' •si n I'd- ' ai *o« »ia 

^^ .icl nk- i_aT^l».t :: ioflv . \ ? y, Q'ta' >3ts>l»t ni ' 

-1's rT5j.ii- ,x;.ii i;>i-i-' i-'-'.-^t liscLJ ni 'ttUfnlsIq lo't issujJoO 

&ni«ljri»TBw Ad^ oj . .-; -. -.^ i!r«« afllMJtud •d* to inott 9sii oi 

*«iLt suoircfo il i^aitii aW ".dJoo^ocf « ,11 Ii«o •lficfcf«'ieft orij- J-cx ., 

•aoqrxjuq on "xo sJ^^iX •rxoc JsXiJow j^nlbXluo ed^ to ^aoi't al snl;f«il3lq 

■XiidT ^n^ nl 6i>fc-.M ert&w esiisvlXst; XXjb ^XludiiiqQjs imsii noo^ei 8x(l Tot 

,^aXl)Xii^ sifcr to ^ocit exi^ nJ: ;fon btui 

exij to 98oqici;q \:3c.ultq •xil d'AXil noiiilqo to osXie sm e^ 

££ ,ttX^aUXq •itrtni bi^ 4^^ooY;o<i « ficiXo'A^es ui imi b£W ^fu^esioiq 

•U9 tiB jx fie^sxojiq a^iw ^altXijj<f »iii x^^ni^aoo ed^ no ^ud ,8hn9^noo il 

.8ii9did«ixi sti ftae aoLau 'alrustrtatvjb ilitsnacr oi i07£&/> 

sai|>bXox6 ai j^s^tts liuos sdl ti»At •A4UD osiJe si loijeXqaoO 

EJisvinfe »riJ*lo sffioa »«iW *D»iA« »xlj c*'1t11*nl«Xg '^£tf *»tetto •onsfclr* 

c i' iaott al)oo% ©▼issat lo o* aiboos larlXsb o* tituio orl* eafoin^ to 

0^ &l£8 bMA i»±ulq BtH imif* 't'tiisilBLti to «»xoI<pa» na frlol' i^nlfcXlucT 

ao 
mM> iuQ fcaXu-s noJ;Jo'>t<*o\««* oonofciva aidtf to •atoS .8i9vitl> lioue 

ui .eorijB^ioqiEi to *c>a al sfcaaf ^aio« ft/l* jLolrii sW «'^a8i«9xf aaldcf 

'^?iitlla«# oxtw b&XJuBO ottaw eiftviiJb to tscfniio a Ijari^ ioAt axf;t to wwIt 

9fi;r to ai^aioiq ©xjj- x;<J Aaalvfcfi aiaw ^a^* nsrtv? J^«iil aonjs^adua «1 

■io3 £)i«vna3-t« saifiXlurf aiit o>t o^-j o* foaawte^ ifexli JniaXqaoo e'nolnu 

noina aaaw -^»ii.r »a.wj«oorf efcoo^a aniiarXXalJ io anlviaoea to ©ao^ituq »ri* 

.©ui 1 .+ 9^ji'i « "mjt* o* *on cTxiin;© aAXun noinu tli&i -tehau bas^. .nam 

©ajj^oad al»aa ion aiew aai^sTiXafc aflioa M«*^a*tii *«il* nwoxle ai ii ftnA 



to do so would "be a violation of the rules ol' the union to which 
the men belonged. 

i'or the reasons stated the decre ol' the ^perior court 
ol' Cook county is s.l'1'irmed, ^^^^„^— — *::x 



,^ 



mfmm Ai'jpiRkii}. .1 



^1 



McSu rely , P. J., and Matchett , J., concur. 



{l«luv o^ aoXiUJ 903 to a»lui 0tit 'to aol4«Xoi7 ii 9<i bluow e« ob o^ 

^Tiuoa loi^C'sqi/iii. Btii to nBtst^b adt bniMim anoa^oi 9tit tot. 

*b9sanrttM 9 1 x^fiuoo otooO to 



,ijjorfoo , .1. 



409S3 



BOKe STORES, INC., a oorporatlon, ) 



tm a ■ , INC., I oorpqje^ati^, 

HOTEL - -^N Ck1!t:m%^^ cy;, a ; 




ti^P^L FROM 

J-' 



WPF.aiOR COURT. 
COOK 6©m4TY. 



MR. fmBimm jwstics; matchstt gklivstbes the ofi^zoK or fHs covmT. 

la airt action In forcible 4«t«ilnffir to recover Mditlon&l 
•paee in ci building located st 63-69 «« Madisoa street In Chio&go, 
&ef«a<3.£jite «ftde a aotlon to strike w^hleh vas dsnlad, And pl&lntlff 
a motion for eumoary judgaent whicli v&^ allovred, and df»f«naants 
ftjp^paal. 

flw rl^te of the parties ai»e bfeised on certain leasee and 
agreenente attaobed to the affidavit for Jud^ssent, tt^rm» of whlob 
are not denied in the affidavit submitted la behalf of defendants. 

It appaarc that December 1"?, lPi-9, the Molr 'lotel Oorapany 
dealsed certain epaee in this building to Illlnole Bend storee, Ine. 
fkM hotel aesigned ^ie lease to another corporation known s<.s 65 west 
Madison street building Corporation, fhe assignee aade a eupplemen- 
tarjr agreeoent in writing irlth Illinoie Bond ^tor^e. Inc., whereby 
the spaee of the leesee ime enlarged to include all thc^ third 
floor of the building vith the exeeption of saaple rooms on thi» 
north side of it and corridors leading to it. This acir«e«ent also 
provided that the lessee night further enlarge this epaee so as to 
iaelttde all the third floor upon 50 dajr written notice to the 
lessor to enter into an appropriate agreement eoverlng the additional 
spaee. 

Cn the ea@e day th» lessor (65 ^est Madleoa street Suildint 
Corporation) entered into a tupplenentary a^-reeaent in ««Titing with 
the Savoy Building Corporation wbleh held a prior lease. @y this 
supplementary agreenent it vas provided thst the Savoy iulldlnu Cojp- 



I««0» 







{ 


»• 






( 








! 


J 


.T/iu-v 


i '. !> V 


( 


.nc/.^ 






( 


& 


.XT-:- 




{ 





,0dl}ii*i(»qnoe ji (•inn , 



I 




XjU!tel}J[M>a •x^voo*^ o9 n«MRA*f*A 9l6t&tc\ nX r ^ • 

>I ,«MO#a 6iio8 tiOiiilXZ o> salJbXitfrf tlrfJ «1 Miiq« «iA^»o j«Rxr«a6 
nwofi^ aoi<r«rtOTt09 la^aw of ••••X aXxff ^wqiiaaA X«f©il tdT 

,.»nl ^u^xtast hn9^ «i««iXXI iCtiw snifJt-xw al »ii*»«rsa« T««* 

,vT[ld* «Ki» XXji «ftvX9fll 0* ft«ruiXat a^w »9aa«X tti %• aM^ ttft 

9iit ao am9«^ «X<i«ia to aolfqaaxa fti& jfTlw ^tblled •Of la -x*«Xl 

obXa }aa««aas« "-WY ,*i of WBJ'hA9l Mfbt-vw Aa* Ji 1© •blm OS^w 

ot BA 08 M«<|a aliff ai^Alaaia^'xift tiffalai ©eaaaX •dV f4rff h^btfo^q 

9i$S OS 99ltoa tt9fSltm at*JI OS iio«ir iweXt &^iit 9Ai XI* a&irXdal 

XaineitlA^A ''-^ .i<>it«vas /fnaffi»an&a a;fAln<7«*ia(i« OA otal "xataa of toaaaX 

,a*«<ia 
^lAXluei faa^rfi lu ,'«a'^ «8) ^oaaal arff t«* •«*• •*** «* 

ti3iv ^ISl'tvi ni f/iaeaa'sni* ftafw^^q^l*"* * o""^ A»^efffa (n©l»«te<rioa 



-8- ' 

porfttlon '«wal<l yi«ld wp pj^oaptljr tJil® addltloa&l «pac« ©a tfe® tfelM 
fl<M>r thQn \iMer !.«&•« to lt« If Illlxiois Bond stores, Ino. lilieuld 
at «ay tlse b«eoae entitled to taJt« tills itSdltldnftl «sp«Mi>« Mn4®r Its 
tHpn»«»«nt of the smsm d^tt with tM l@@.»or. .^airey Hotel &ft« rwarde 
changed Ite b«b« te tlae CMoagoaisit Xne., 4U?id 011 i^rll 5, 1937, 
lillROlB Bond stores, Ino, as«lgn«d all Hb ri#it« title anS Interest 
under Its leaee *nd agi^eaiente with. refer«nQe to these |>s^ml@e@ t@ 
pl&lntlff, 

Beee»toer '?7, 1037, plaintiff senred a ^rlttea aotlee on 
6S ¥e«t Meiidlson Btreet Building: Oorponttlon, x^equestlag tM« addl~ 
tloiiAl epAOe and requesting the oorp©r&tloa to ejceeute an i^p2»opiriat«! 
i^ppeeotent &e pz^vldied. Oa Septasber 19, 1933, tlie Building Cor» 
poratlon, as lessor, deislPed to plaintiff the additional ei^aee pur<- 
smant to this atp^eenent of lieeember 31, 1956. On tiotober 10, 193S, 
plaintiff nade a written demand on the defendant, Chioagoan, for the 
possession of the preiaises whioh va« refused, and January 7, 1939, 
this suit «ra« filed. The other defendants are sub-tenants of the 
Hotel Chieap», Ine. 

fhe agx«en»nt of l^eeeaber 3>1, 13^6, between 65 <eet 
Kadison street SulldlBg Oorporatlon and Illinois Bond l^tores. Inc. 
reoited: "It is oemtenqpilated by the parties hereto that thM Lessee 
nay hereafter require an enlargenent of ite speoe oa said third 
etory for sterehandising pttr|:>osesr In the leaee between the Leseor 
aaA Savoy Hotel Corporation covering the hotel portion of said 
building the Lessor has reserved the right to vithdrair fro® the 
hotel tenant suoh additional spaee on the third etory of said build- 
log as might \m hereafter granted to the Lessee purstiant to this 
aaendment, fh© Lessor agrees thet it will within thirty (30) days 
after the reeelpt of a written x^Quest from the Lessee enter into 
an appropriate agreement, in *rtiieh all ot the parties hereto ishall 
Join, further enlarfing the denised e^oe so as to include all of 
said third story with the exeeption of tuoh epaoe as it taken for 
building elevators and other utilities, fmid agreement shall ex- 



tnJttH •At am MJiq* XjMi«JttlM# *tm xltcpt^t^ <IM AX«it i>i>NW ttclt/n^^ 
blt:eni» ,ottl ^nf^roSS £«o6 Bt^llll 11 ,fi 09 ••«•! i9hau uitt «mX1 

eMjnf*i*ftit X»ir«^ t<>^A* •no«t9i •ttt SSt'tt 4|9a6 •**• Aiil W #ni«»«'Sj*« 
•ir iMiNrzq MtdV «r ••Jfi(«i«t«v rtflv titiiittM^A hmm ••»•! bH <t«6iui 

,ascx ,01 •xetfofoQ nO .dsei ,XS •xMra«»««a to 9aMi«rxia tlitr <»1 litaim 

M{J^ -col ,flso9»9itfO tlOAftufttftA tilt mo i^fUMtA flff lX*iw « oAoii 11i#flX«Xq 

« vX ,T xtA«fiT«X* £fu» tbi^9iJttn Mw iloXiiv sotlnnq •<& lo fleitatotoq 

oiCt to •;riisi:!»;t-<fv« rt« tlotti^atlftJ^ <xodtto MfT .AoXXl ••» lX»t tjtxd 

,OllI «O3^8ii(0 X«^oH 

}••» 9S fioovlttf ,9^X «XS ^Mfaoeoa to tAosoo^BA odT 

,ojtI ,a«nio;r@ iikAoS ftXctiXXXT i^Ji soliTAioq^O SaXAXXjiQ forxl€ aotlJ^oX 

»d88»J 9iii iAsii Qi$>%9tL MBiftrnq. »iSi ttf <fr<i'<fAXqfR«;fiioo ti 91* t&»irxeon( 

IrUxlf bJbi* an ttOAq* iti to ||ioaM»si;AX0O oa nivpot 'x»9tAtn»(i ic<a« 

«KOOO«»«l ocfj fifttt^tocf e«»oX vii^ nX .«si«(TUiq 80X«iAn«il»*i«a fOt Txotii 

»i£r «o<xt w«Y^jtf9Xw o9 ttt^ti M9 frortMon tAd t9«9»J 90(9 BflXftXXjNf 

-4»Xl0cr 6Xj»« to ttofs &«X49 949 9« 9»Aqa X«aoXtlA5« i&wm tnM9t l^9A 

»fd9 &S tfaBUMtuq 99»««4 *Ai oi b9faan^ rs99tjt9rt9il ttf 9<(^a a« seX 

p.Xsi ^iXAf nlAiht llXw 9X |«(I9 999%S« 79999J OilT .909BAa9B9 

o9fli tDyirra 99e»9J mtt vo^t laovport nolfXnv a to 9qX99«i 9d9 ivlte 

lXjarl9 9tff9d •9X9<XAq odt to XXa 49X4fw JU plTAfrKOOiq^ o^AXrKqonqqa lu 

to XX|k oAiiXoal 09 a« o« 99#qt J&99l«tti^ 9i(9 saXaiiAXao %Mfi%tg\ %aXo{ 

•zot iiAiCa9 9i 9 A ooAoi ^oifs to HAlloAOSO tO sUlv 'no99 ft«XJl9 AiJM 



pr«8Sly preierv« all of t3i# eoTeasats 6M ttgrc-ementc eoBtRia«<l .In 
8«.ld L«fce« fts li«r«>t©f or« aaa fcwrefey amtnaad *»**•,« 

By tli9 Ift&ise of De««iB!»ar $1, 1S36, to tlMi >^<a,vo3r H9t«l 
CxuppOT&xlon, tutt ).efie«ei «ft#i* f«eitlng tSi* provleLenn of tJ»» l*&e« 
to rilinels load Storee, lac,, stetlon 3 of the !«&•« rffOit«g. *fh» 
Le6««« aeknovledges ths,t it %» fa^lllM* witJi s&id 3ont s^^toree leaiae 
«.fi no*f awoadet and with ttoe proTlsiens of fl&ld, further iffli«nte«nt 
thereto to 1d« ex«o«t*d «t or ftteo^t thm tl«« of tii« «a;*»c«tion of 
till* in^titur« referred to la Ai»tiel« First her«of , The l»«ss«« 
»gre«8 to afford the said Bond stores, as 1^«»«« under aald Bond 
i^tor^fs l«s.e«, ae amended as Aforesaid, the follot^ing rights and 
servleeB &« upeolfled and <Sefined in s&ld Bond Btor^e loa»e &s nov 
or herenftcir weended: * * ♦, • section 4 reelteaii 'tbe Lessee 
covenant e that If e&ld Bo»d 'Stores should at any ti»e here&fter be- 
eoite entitled to taXo the additional ep»©e &n the third story of 
ettld building, pureuARt to eald amendaent referred to In Artiole 
first hisrm^t, to be exeouted At or About the time of the exeeution 
of this indenture, the lessee vlll promptly yield up poeeeeeion of 
eald Additional apaee and afford said Bona storee rea«oniible 
faoilitiee for aeeoapliehlng any ^sitable or apPi*oprlftte revleloniB 
la or alterations of eald additional ispaee. ** 

t%te defendant, Ghloai^aii, Ine., bajb defend£tnt« turm in 
poseeseloR not ae usere tenants at will but hold under a lease whioh 
denlied the promisee for a tern of thirty years. Xt argue 9 l^at 
defendants ha'ie ttie right to question toe 0]ption granted to plain- 
tiff by plaintiff's lessor. It is nald that the right of plaintiff 
to exez^lse the option Is eondltioned upon plaintiff's reqaire«ents 
and needs; that ne partioular form of languaf* or teohnioal words 
are required to oreate such a oondltlon preeedent, and that striot 
eosplianee witd:^ the terms and eonditions was neoessary; th#t it was 

necessary for plaintiff to aver in Its oosplaint and to prove upon 
the trial an actual bona fide intention to use the premises for the 
stipulated purpose, and tibat plaintiff's lessor eould not waive this 



•aA«X Mtt lo ft#iaX«i?«^q •xCT sAXarX««t t»tt« ttM««{ ^M «AelM<to^»9 

•tft" .sMrxci*^ MJitX i^as \q ^ n9lt9— ,.»rI .loteif^ J^aoC tXoatXXX «r 

<i8««X «fnio^<^ ^iie*^ &JU* /ItXv •x»|Xim«l li tt tmAt «f;^«Xwea]to« ••a«#J 

.»rtrtfflhn«i«& ^^dfrurt &JUa to vioXa^OKd «{{# 4f Iv if^OM ^•ftA4MUi woo 84 

vJ:4ii asAou •••ii«X tA « >a«S Jftjuu «<I« lni;oll« of 9»tt^« 

-»<I lo^luftstfii ui^ x^A l« AXitoite tnof<; MoS >!«• II imdt •9a»tt*r9o 

10 i^ota inliii ttf no t««qi X«aoi;rit£wB •At 9JUi of k^jjisat «aoo 

•I9tt^ £ii fit 6fiKa»tn faenftlifiKft bttia ot tamntuq. .s^lftXIvcf M«t 

A9iliI09Xf Qd? lO Affii? 04} ^11044 %P l« A^Tvoox* ttcf ol ,tG»i;wl Ysiil 

le aol«a»e«o^ qii i>X«Xt xlt^atnq, ILlyi ••••♦J wit ,t«iitQt&iil %liit 1f> 

tXcr>u(«««ti tno^a 69oa I>Xmi l^ott* J^n« omcci XjinoXJitfta tlM 

•flOitlTrx •9al^q«ncji||i ^0 •I(Uliim ^^^ itni<faXX<3ttO»o« <IOt f ti^XXiOAl 

' .90«q« XoaoXfXAi^A AXa8 to a0Ol}Ji«»tX« 19 «4 

iloXflw 9a»»X « iQ^u Mo<C tu^ IUm tn nta»a«t ^rmi m ttm noisavatoq 

9ii4sr a«vj{i4 tl »^tMwx xfilAt t« cma^r « iiot aaaXna^q edjT taaia»& 

-jBlaX^ ot £«^iij»^ aoX;9^qe 9iur B^Xt99tfp 9t titj^t Ml| av*^ alpaJboatoft 

irttntAlq. 1« tdiit 9il^ tailt blM^ aX #Z .lOtaaX a'ttltnXAXq X(f Itit 

8fna«ia*ijt&^»Y t'ltltfRXaX^i fto<pi £i«jiojt;^K><ioo af eoj^qo mii aaiomaxa ol 

ai^oar x«oXiti(9«3r 'xo vs^w^Al ^9 anot <s«Xjioi;»iA<{ as t^Ot inh^^a !^a» 

S9l%t* tiuis boM t3n^bit9tttti &9ttibat>9 « datta 9t99'i» 9i ftr(ijup<n a^ 

a^ |I4 ttnit iirui*9999a a«w anaXtJtftaoo l>fl« tflna^ aitf £9Xv aonaXXq^aoo 

aa^ arotq «$ &n« laXAXqpaa «#i aJL ttm^ 9» '^'\Ual^^l^, lot Yquaasaaaa 
■i^nlmfno. ^ffAt « a&it Mao4 l»Bt&» r» -Ix-lit hU 



ooBdltion pr®0«d«nt tor 4«fend«mt®; tJmt th© contr&ots &ad &gr«6«- 
iMnts, first, b«tvr»en pl&lRtlff and plaintiff •« X«e»or, «kBd 9«eeiidljr, 
b«tw««n pl&lntiff'e Xea«or and a«f@ndsnt8, w«re aad© on the »«»« 
daj JU)d x^X&te to the same eubjeot 8i&tt«jr>, wore Xnevn to all th« 
l^«rtl©« and vrexni «xftdtit«d for a aoatEsn purpose. Therefore, it ie 
itri%i«d, th0s« oRtet ^ conistrued te^«ti^r. 

Dftf#n«5jtRt taye it la a dlr«et beneficiary of th« limltatloai 
liai>o»©d on the option of plaintiff for %h« disputed space, &ad mat 
the eontraet 1»ett^«a plaintiff a»d its lesaor ¥»«» for the Mtieflt 
«f daf«ndant«, and that defendant* ar«, tb^refore* entitl«d tQ hair« 
its provisions enfortiad; that titi« e^ao^laint ■*(»,» lneuffloi«nt in 
failing to aHeg« that tbe adaitloaal spa©« ua.6 nead^d toy plaintiff 
for mcrchandielnjK, purpc*tg« and that, as a matt«r of law^i^an a right 
of aetion dep«»nd0 upon th« perforaane* of an ant«e«dent eonditioa 
or the exlstenoe of an ant«9«d«nt faet, a ooatplalnant aust aver the 
«xieteno« ofthefaet or perfonaanoe of tht eonditlon. It 1« «aJ.d 
1^18 proposition of law it applieahl« to a oooplaint in forcible 
datalner; th«t plaadinga ar« to bo construed strictly against tiie 
pl«ad«r, luid a99ttffiing thB lav to ba as aet fortJti, the wvldenelarjr 
faets as dlseloead by th« affidavits in support of and s^ainet 
■tn»ary Judgnant are insufficient, and that th«ra was an leate of 
fact for th# ttourt or Jury as to whether plaintiff in fact ^raqairad * 
ths additional spaoelbr eierehandising imrpo«efl or vhsthar it naadaft 
tht additional cpaea at all. Tha affidavit subaiittod in bahalf of 
dafeadant denied that the 4&ddltional spaee tmte needed hy plaintiff 
for aerohandieing imrpeses and denied that plaintiff intended to use 
it for that purpose, and averred that its request for the additional 
BptL09 vas aot nade in good faith. As evideaee of this the affidavit 
states that aul^orised ap^ats of plaintiff stated to agents of de« 
fendi&nts that plaintiff did not intend to use the epaoe for s«r- 
chandieing purj»oees and, as a aiatter of fact, 80»e tine in the 
future ial»nded to use it for other purposes. 

If the law applie&ble is as ii^tated by defendants, ve think 

J 



,iXI>noo«» bam ^loatsi: •'ItlJtiiaif Jb«« tllifaJ^AXq m«wl»tf tit'xil ,«t«M 
• 1 tl ,-" ■"— "'^ ,-"'-- luij aosuBdO * Ttol B»*««ia.!» rx«« baa vtifo^f 

li!tMiac( «if9 lol Mw <voa«*i ati JNw mtoiAXq fi*««r^«c( 9»«%ta«f> trft 

ttb^i'x A fi«/iHtVi»X to t»994Mi A •«,)Ad9 &fl« «il£fi93II..lBlliMliilftlJICX 

f»Ol9i^O0 }A«i»98»9aA MM !• •(MUUrCOt^»q AlU K»qU tftfltqsA tlOif* tO 

9l4l9'io1 aX talultptoo 4 ot •XdAOlX^^A aX y*X !• AOi^Xtd^^n^l MttU 

vtt i9MlAi^^, xLtoltin JbtniMaoa 9^ 9$ 9%» aiAiftAtXq tjutt 'tt9alMt9ft 

XiMlaa^&Xt^ 9Ai ^Mt^t $M e« f«f •f W4I mi$. lAXmniVfl ftilM tn»&«fX«{ 

7«aiA:»a JbOA %« ^t9^<pi9 aJL «/JtT«£>il'U «il;l \i AMoXlMXJb «« a^O«t 

^S>«J^»«yK 9X '$9aa%tbg "lo •••oirurq 3aiftXiM«|lotMK i(ft ••»<%» li9aeUii>bM MfiT 
lo >X*JJ»4 aX A*nXsn«ftf« ^ivadXtlA f«<7 ,rXA 9s MAqt X«aoidlA&» 9di 

%Xl9alAl% J^ b9Jb9»ti 9m «9«qK JbMQliJJbbM •!» *A<U ft*Xaft£> $aJ9&M9'%9it 

99M 9t b9Sin9inl tUStilMl^ 0Mit Ati0»6 ftflA tAAttq'Vf^ aAlsX&AAiiOKflfi not 
?,a9X9X&&« 9£t^ tot ;^B*i»|>«n «}X S9&$ lHn%9yiA Ana ^AAOirw^ 9«4^ %9t tA 

iltA&nta 9ti$ Ik us lo 99a9Allf9 9A ^t»X ^9« J|i OluiW f«a AM 00*^ 

«ti»ffi •xol »»•«» <ui« •«» o« 4a«9ftX #oa JbiXA nX7ajUX(| ir«f(f offiA^Af) 
'itdi at 9mlt »ao« ,99«t le *;(*17mb a «a ,l»flA ««i«ocp:xfq ^nXaXdiiACtf 

,»??»0'g^f'' "■ ---■■•-■ - " *» ' 



jt. ^Ov.'. .%.•* M t 



It wouia follsw that tto® &ffl(a«vlt« aieel<ss« an lasu® of faet, l«w- 
©ver, we a® not «fiii« tab*t t3i» agreaawats oan be int»rp3*«t«4 se- 
cor^lng to def«naa.nt'ff contention. TheiN? was no agroea«nt or eoa- 
traet 'tetv««n i^l&lntiff stnd any otw of th« d#f«adiant«. Ilwr* iras 
no eontraetual rol&tlon«hlp betwMsn thoa, ft» agiiMseaunt of B©o«mb«r 
31, 1936, fest^eon plaintiff and its l«e«er i^rae not for th« b«aeflt 
of dtftn^ante, ffee Qhloafoan, Ino. la Itt l«&s« of S»otm1»ep SI, 
1030, ackii©wl»ilg«d that It liafi notioe of tfe» ©.grtessent fe^twasen 
plaintiff ai^ plaintiff's iossor under whlefa plaintiff Jmd %hM rlgfet 
to r»qa@8t and obtain additional spaee, this 6p&e« being j&art of 
tbat i^lch vas leased to th« ChiG«^ean, Zne. By the terms of the 
&gr«M»a«nt botvt^en plaintiff's laseor and th« d#f«>ndants, defandaat 
bound itself to ylold up poflsasaion of tht additional spae« if and 
vtian plaintiff b«oaia« entitled to it under the agreessont bttweon 
plaintiff and its lessor. The use ^fileh plaintiff alght make of 
the additional epaot wa« a aatter wholly lauikaterlal in «o far as 
defendant is concerned. The oonditlon of the option vae not tSiat 
plaintiff alK^t need or require the space but that plaintiff should 
Qotlfy it* leeeor and obtaj-n frog it an atjyeeaent for the le&eliig 
of each additional epaee . fhle wae the eondition precedent and the 
only one in eo far a« this defendant i« eoneerned, i'laintiff's 
lessor ie i^t a party to this proceeding. The option was from plain- 
tiff's leeeor to plaintiff, end while the eontraet reoited the elr- 
ouaetaneos nrhieh might in the future oauee plaintiff to exereiee its 
option, that eirouatetanee wae not aiade the eondition upon i^ieh the 
leaee of the additional epaoe was to be exeouted. Under the plain 
terme of defendant*!^ eontraot with ttu» leeeor defendant agreed to 
surrender the additional epaee upon the execution of a lease there- 
of by ite leeeor to the plaintiff, and upon the exeeution of sueh 
lease to plaintiff, plaintiff beeame entitled to the poeeeselon of 
theee presisee. The affidavit for defendant tenders an im&aterlal 
iSKue. 

we have no quarrel «ritb the lav ae cited in defendant'* 



<-9« b«j»*x^alal dtf a»« •9a»p';e9i^ Vif} ^«if9 »*r^ ton ot «w ,<«•?• 

•«w •VMfT .»;Aai^jT«ltJb 901} t& sac t"* &<<« tl it al«Xq ii«tvt«tf iosii 

it1»e9€ 9d$ nel Imi ««v rt«k««»X ii;ti Aoa l^U^iiiai'i: a99vr}ftf «dSJ6| 1^ 

;td3ii: 34^ &Mi t'UinlmX'i Ao^tfiv filttm io»«tX «'tlX}fiJL*X£| Uma ItUalMlti 

lo t'tJK 8*^^ MMKpi aiifjr ,»eAq[S LuieXti-b^ iU*#tfp Xmi« tf«*Aip«K CUT 

•4t le «««•# Mtt 1(4 .MiX tiM»«a»Xtf3 Md? M ]&immi»X «jiv xfulifir tMtist 

tti»itti9%^h t^tRMtbait'fJi *A$ ba» %o«t»X •*ttXlnXjUq 0»9«rt*d }n»4DA«i^ 

l»n« tt ••«({• Xj»aeXlXft&» ftdt !• a«iA««ssoq <gt hl»lx 9t tX#i> .^^f 

A»«Vire4 #AtCN|t«1^^ AlU tAAiAA #Z OJT ^AXfXtAA AttAOttf TtUolAXq AACtV 
1» tllAW ^ll^iA ttXtAXAX;^ doXllV »A«I AliT •7M8AX ft#X AAA ItXtAiAXq 

«A nAt o« ni X«Xif>^AAAl xllntiMi %tiam a saw aoA^i lm»l$iMm mdi 
tm^ iem aaw a&liqfi 9as to nAltX^AAA . ac(7 J^aiiuaoiioo a1 ttuti^hslAft 

&x»«i:is ni}Ai;»xa t»i» ^«Mf i^fffffli, ^ ,fiiiiiH>n lit ftttm ?<fcyff iu/axaXq 

9AS liAA tA«^tO«^ 'i Aeitil^A9« ttii «AW •lHQ' . |^Aay Ii| flpi|^jt|| ^ f[^^ ^ 

9*t'Uinl»l% ,htmi»onQ9 nA tAAMvtvih ttX4# %a %a1 m aI ma %Xii^ 

hbXaX<( Mtn't «Aiw AOJUr^ mSS ,^l&^»9Vi(i Ai4l o^ tit^iAq a (Toil aX ^xoAAAjt 

-^» wAi f^f^rXAAa JTAAidnAA aii;} «Xi4vf &a« .ItXtAjAXq at «aa«aX i*tlX<t 

9t$t »«leic«xj» ot %'Xl$nliU:t{ a^juaa 0'witA 9£tir ui t4;iiX« flaXxbr AAOOA^AmifA 

mfis sioXdM notiu noX^Xbaoc »tii •tjm tea aaw AAiiA^amtfaHiiA Stuit ,A0l9<{e 

AiAXq Afi^ ntA^fl^/ ,b9itl'd'%3i» »4 Ot »A>« AOAiiA XaAOXIXAi&A Af£; tO AAAAX 

c»ir i>»fn:$m iMkBS^^ 'xmsaI Mijr litXim jroArKraot « ' ^iiaJu3o1«& to A»«tt9 

-f»?Wli7 «»A»X A )« fiOldl/0«L« e£i} 0Oqp» n&»<^ lAttGjLll&b» tU %»b^t(Tim 

dpiM to ii»itilQ»%9 AdV R&qu J^Ay» (ItX^^iAXq «t£l A^ %AAa»I AdX Sl^ Ic 

lo i!0Xaia«««(»^ A^^ ^ bnUifa* smMiS ItltsilMlq ^fUialAlti oi aaaaX 

XAX^A^TAamX aa AtefraA? $AA/}ns>l«A %^1 StrA&t%t(i 9tCt .asaiAAaq aaa^ 

• Aiuaai 



-6- 

bplef &n^ elabepately &3?gu#d by it ^Ith citation of m&te tls«Jt one 
himdr«4 6ad seventy-five authorities. The lau Is el^asent&ry. fh« 
undleputftd facts ahcw that It !§ aot applleabla. 

!Rj« purpGit of a tiuBmary proceeding Is th&t the e#urt nay 
4at*rmla« «ii«?r«s ther« l8 any l«au« of faet to be trUd. If »« 
uadep«taiid th« law applleabl« It appears hare tb«re l» ne l«fw« of 
faot. Qtilea^tQ Yitlg *^ frttst Co . ▼, 0<^en « 2S4 111. App. 1^1 » 1^*^; 
$Bry V, Chlea^ Ey. ^iiQalpatetit C@ . ^ g98 111. App. 471, 478! a®b«rt8 
V, ^aaeraftaa Brog. . Im , , 300 111. App. 215, S17. Peftiidant 8ay«, 
hDwaver, that forelbl© detainer wa© not available to plaintiff? tliat 
itt proper remedy waa either by «ult at law for daaagee on t^ 
OGTenant or by eult In e<|ulty for speolflo perforaanoe. Defendant 
i« nlstaken. Bwsmmxj Jud^pent may properly be entered In a forcible 
detainer aetlon, walneoett ▼. Penlfcoff. SS7 111. App, 73, ilala- 
tiff ooitld maintain Its tult for poeseseion under the Forelble 
Betalner Statute, |2, f>ar. 4, Gbap. B7, 111, :itat« Sar state, 193®, 
p. 1713. Personal Hoae MortKatce Co . v. r^ee^rln. 275 111. App. 419? 
g^at Ulde Tra»t A saving* BanH: v. Lopoten . 358 111. 631, 636? 
walneoett v, Penlfcoff . 207 111, A^p, 78 j Soldblatt Sroe. v. Hoefeld. 
Inc .. S84 111, App, 31, 37, 

T!ii« ^udgnent will be afflraed. 

O'Connor and «®Sur«ly, JJ,, eonour. 



.•X(i«9lX^^.4 <^0A tl^Jt iiuU «•!$« a^««1 i^^iiq9JU>a« 

ITQX «XaX .4^^ «XXX MS sltttoi -^ .oO iraiwY A tXllT m^UO .iToal 

tfl»tf# (8^^ «^^» Wq^^ •'^•^^ e^ » -aO taMgi—a .HA «>«ftl^ ^t ^mI 

,»xais *a*lMiei»'^ ,?X2 ,«^ ,t«^ .XXi OOC ..Ml .r^^fl lillffltffff •» 

?4d<f {Di^jsLtAXf «^ •Xtf4Xtfty» ttm 9SM itiX(ti3ii •Xtfiriot ^juit 4:^0V9«*jEt 

<kU «« ••;a'»««& "tel WAX ^4 ilu* Tft %Bdst9 ftsw %lb»»w% «»q«^^ a;ri 

9lidl9n9Ti • Hi J^«««#at •If tX-x^'lMq V^ fii»at^'>iit timhul''^ .nftitotfiiXx tl 
«aMX% «6T .fd^ .XXI ?SS .^yfl^ff ,T Ifttigiir «n«i^M ii»ifiA#ft& 

:^x» «viA> .XXX 8v$ .^TO»»4 .? -ft? nuiinfr mil iMBiin •^^^ «« 

mb ,IZ9 .XXI S«« ,JL2l2SSSi •>' ^1^ faiMy#8 4 ftril f»lf IffH 

..jjLi^sk .V .»o^a n4^wx<^ Iff ,^ «xix Tsa aiB^Uii t"" mmM. 

,^?: ,X& .qi<tA • XXX MS ..j^ 
.j^ttsnltl* 94 XXiw ^««ff;|fltlil tiifl? 



410?8> 



Vm Slstat« of Si«ffi«el e, L«4»©r, „,■ ) 

) 

':, & eor^f ration, / / I ) -'^ 

iipilellaiKt. 




rmoM 

CXItGtJlT GOOUT, 




%05l.A.48t 



MR. wmnxiim justice MAfOMETf ogLiT«:^u tais Qrwton or the €ouet» 



tn an Astloa under th« etatat« for trrongful dc^s^th, upon 
trlftl by Jury th«r« w&« a terdlet for plftlntlff with ajLa«ige« of 

$7500, on i^leh ju%si«nt wks entered. This 1« a eompanlon o«i« to 
(Kerteral K$, 40919 by the «&Binlstrater of tb» eetAtt of I>11« L. L&uer« 
in vhieh an opinion h&f been this day filed. 

the Lftuere, bufband and wife, died as & result of injuries 
ettetained ^ovewber 20, IS?"?, when the automobile in whieh they were 
riding *rae etruok by one of defendant 'e care whioh ^eme being pushed 
•est on traeke ndxloh interseeted Kuelid avenue, & p»bXie high^nty 
running north and eouth in the City of Chicago Heights in Cook 
Gounty. The material faote are the easse in both easee, but for eon- 
renienoe we restate theee faett here, 

* **♦ fhe aooldent in vhioh these %vq loet tSieir live© 
oeeurred Sloirember 20, 1937, at about 8J00 ?,K. Tl»y were riding in 
an Oldsaobile automobile, t^ieh Mr. Leuer waa driving. Euelid 
aveaue was paved. It wae eroeROd at right anKlea by defendant's 
rigWK)f-w«y on vhioh there are eix tracks 71 feet wide from the 
aorthez*naoet to th» eouth^rnsioet rail. Fieturee are in evidence 
•hoving the eituation at the orosfing at the tiae of the accident. 
On ^e veet Ride of the street, 6 feet north of the northemaoet 
traok and BS feet to the veet of the «reet line of the avenue, vra« 
a MBall shanty ueed by a fls^an. fifty feet to the west of tfeif 
was a saall latrine building;, thirteen feet nor^i of the northerly 
traek and 5 feet weet of the street wat a erci»e»ar« bearing the 









^ .A.I a 08 



\ ,/ 



' »i«iii« 



.nH 



^4»e;) at t#ii(sl«H ««jft«li(9 to ttl!) •dt fti <f9v«»ii ftn* iffnoir Tiotttxttn 
-noei tot Sua «•«)«• ffyotf Ai mm «^t #«« i«Mt XaJNstMf «d7 .x^ntwe 

.«<tW «f4uit t(i«if^ «ti»tS4n 9vr •tji»ln*ir 

fll IHiaii «w x*rfT .»."* 6®«® tsMtfil til ,Wtfl ttfll 49dmvtr&M. dftTiuaoo 
giildur^ .T^uiTi'xA ««« fm»l .«rM ifoiiftr ,«Xitfo«oti» sXicieflaMJ ttm 

•i» «o^ tftiv JmI XV tioa-x* xi« »^ vtwit tiolOw iw> x»w-t»^a^x 

tnttrntntitt^n mAt to diTtoa #99t B ,9»rsft *df# to •&1* fw Aifif nO 

M^^ ,»sM«v« ma tc eniX sf««w <Kfy t« >••» wft ot 5r«»t W Jkui ^oarf 

«lrf* 10 *««w »i» o* #»«t xftl"? .KMSAXt a xd Am* t»««ii« tlBm m 

^It^cfinoR w» to ilfiea J«»t im»iriWnf .ifliAXisfff »iiiit«X XXaai» « ■«« 



'i 

•8- 

w&r&B '♦Hftllvigr CroeslRf . * <vbottt ISO fett north of tli« tpaek w«e & 
rettiid «lgn bearing tiie letters *K ^* * tMrttstn fett asrtto ef tfe« 
eroeeing and 5 f««t •ast of tb« hlghvAjr wb,& & gtr«^«t light. This 
was the onl/ light within 300 fe«t »f the oroesiag. V<uelld avsnue 
wat dasigsataS a» a through ffitr««t b^r the proper mith&ritX&e, ^top 
eigas vara poetad at «t#17 lat«rs«atlng stx^et, t%ier« ^^as ns light 
ef any kind on th« crossing or ob tha w«»t al^a ®f the str<&#t. The 
pairan»nt ef Eualld avaaua frae 34 f««t wide at thlt plao«. the tralna 
of defendant ran over ^@ tiro inner traeke. Th« outside tr&eks vera 
used for «tora#« purpose*. i»««t of the flapsan's shanty was a etene 
and wire fenec. iliere wae evidence froa vhieh the Jury mi^t 
believe that en the night of the aeeldent a train of railroad esr« 
vae standing en the north traek to the we at of th«^ ci'0»®lng. If 
thi« was true, thene nfould tend to obeeure the vleion ^f traveler* 
approaching fron t!M north. The flagmea «a« net on duty at thle 
tli^. iliere watt no vi^waf or aioiring signal of any kind tsaintained 
by defendant «i% the croeeing. There wae no light In the erose-arac 
and no lig:ht on the eroeeing at all so far ac the railroad tme 
oonoerned. The only artificial light va«i the one «lz>eady deeerll»»A 
da the east side of the avenue. There had been eaow in the nomlng 
and the pave»ent waa slippery, 

"Hemden, the rear brakeaan, who was the only ooeurrenee 
vitnees and who was called to testify by both plaintiff and defend- 
ant, said the soon was shining, but other evldenoe Indioffited it was 
dark at the tlsie. Herndon had been employed by defendant for about 
twenty-two years. The erew in oharge of defendant's train consisted 
of Herndon, another brakenan, a conductor, and eng^lne«r and & flre- 
aum. Ilie train oensisted of about eight care which had been piekad 
tip at Joliet, The oar farthffi*«t to the east in the train vun a 
gondola car, &nA the engine was pushing this and the seyen other 
ears east aoross the intersection. Herndon says he was sitting on 
the southeast comer of the gonfiola oar, which he thinks was eaipty. 
He had an electric lantern such s,s hi? used In givini^ signals to the 



wrr .;«4k«s;rt luU 1» i^l* #••« adt no t» $ieit«o^« *ifir fio tMlt xkm !• 

9j£;$1« X^u{, ti} ti9Xttt BOY'S tMf«IUtv« tMr •ifttfT .•out) tiiw Ami 
« xd^ lo e«i«Xv mitf »%trttm49 «1 froaiT MflKtv «MRtiff tmnt nmi 9tsS9 

-fffi^lAd i^oA lll^isiAlq itt9C( led x^lt«9t &i Jk*llM» •«« ttdv te« a««iu>:>I.. 

hmMl^t «>••<( Aikxi A9XiiM muui f£^9 ;ru9c(;i( t« 6«»sX«/i9ei[ aLn^ »A'i' »aMm 

-i9iii& ai9nr*« a/M hM rniiU ^LAtmn »m mXm^ «ff< AHA «^c*9 «X«ftfio» 

«o s^XcTdTXa «»^ M »i»« JM9aiW«M* .RoX3a»*-i»^«X »£» eao^oa »«*• aa«o 

,%iqim a«v ajteXrlJ sri rfoX4«r ^rup AiAfe«os <n4^ *« T[«mo© *«a<wUpo« «m1j? 



•2- 

•m^loeer stad. 0th«r» of ^.© erev, ffo«re **&« n© oth«r light oa th« 
g;ond9l«. H« was on tM top, ittesut 10 ©r 1£ f««t fro® tfes grouM, 
fh» etiflAA which ^«e pudblHg th« train mf &»rB h&^ sXn&Mrle hAAd- 
Xlght« la frcsst and aXe© an el»etrle headlight on tii® r©*r. It we^ 
& road %fp« of «nsrltt«. '*^-» cr«w aad nsa around otiier ®«re right 
««8t ef th« cr^eelng so &e to get th^s^ p&rticul&r e^ra ftJb.«^d of 
tlwa aad silver tlie i«m© t© tfe© 0, & E, I,, v?hi©h w&s About thy*t-. 
quitrter« of & mile e&«t of where tli« &©eid©nt happea«d, ?hftr« was 
» bex c*r in tls« trmla vnleh wa« lilgfe«p tii&B tii» goaaolfi. tfe« otiiser 
brakAfluuEi on tins trala ireda oa the o&r juist b«hlad th@ ^ft<34!)l£. 
5^80 e«tr» v«ro fro» 40 to ^ f««t in leng^th, so tlie froat ead of 
t35M engine whioh w»s puehlag froa the rear wee sl»ottt 4CK) f»et fro« 
v^rt Herndon was riding* the tr&tn wits aovlnf on the fourth tmek 
fro» the north. Kernden m^ye that it -«f«e aoTlsg ahout 3 or 10 mllee 
ftn hoar. He firet 9«w the atttei»dhll«> eomlnir south &t » i$i>««& of 
ahcntt S& nlle* en hour when the front end of hl« tr«iin v&s about 
160 feet v^evt from th« ox^selng, t'he automobile , he ea^e, v&e then 
2K)0 to 400 feet to the north, the he&dllghte of the automobile were 
llghteA, He eaye the whittle of the train wa« hlovinf. He heard 
Vam whletle and »aw the automohile praotloally at the eaise time* 
ii^en about 60 to ?S feet from the oroealag he smiag his lantern out 
aeroee it a# far ae he oould reaoh oat fros ^i# ear, leaning for- 
ward. He Bwxng it eait and weet In ttoe »a»e dire© t ion the train 
wae going. He did not ^t doim fro« the ear onto the ip^unS, and 
no one wa« on the ground Blgnaling, *Ktie lanteim wat &n eleetrle 
with two Iwilbe. It wae produeed In t*ile eoart on or&l arirm»«nt, 
laeh bulb i» about one-quarter of an Ineh in dlaweter, Only one of 
tlMtee wae llifhted. when the train wae &bout 12 f9v% froa the ea>o»ff- 
Ing he gaw ^e first Blgnal to the engineer, Ihe autoaoblle did 
not etop. He felt the engineer apply the air brakes and the train 
stopped about 180 to 150 feet frojfi the point at whleh he gave the 
clonal. The draw bar or coupling ef the gondola oar hit the auto- 



-5- 

.;.:-.';ai: *xo OX ««oo ' " ' .•X«&nc;il 

^-'llXftAft/f ol'xiroftX* m MXa 6ii« »«©•?*■ -* ---.ff 

*>Mu^ ... u-o'Mi am bMd wtt-" — -""■ .(»ni'3flts lo t-..^.^ ..^j^-t « 

..T »TiA» isItioX?"-'- -.-^o"* j»j| .^.. •• -"rtlisrio %as lo #••» 

vf^ ««« rfttlrftr ... . 9iif 9i v^^-. ^.il iwilMh bUM m»tit 

. }!:.to\| trUr a«d9 lAit^id tAv if»X/'.y nlmti 9tli nt im» xotf « 

to ftft«> Jscn^ enflr o , '>6 »t Qifr ■•ntt t^frv n*» Mwff 

a« o 9 ltfo<JA italTos <^. AifJf aXM ootftfrxvH ,d^on 9At iMnt 

^ ts diuet snl«o« ^Xitfoatotiui ftdV v«t #«<iit tH .luod aa 

?t;9<fs «Aw flijR«ft <»l<f t« frA« tifoat mU a«c(w Kv«it JM atHs US iTBCMr* 

^«w «at«o "^ ^aocfvff «tff .gniatmo tii^ fro^t faaw :r««t OdX 

•«t9v aXltfaiBOirirA aitf^r to atfi(^iX&«»d «ifT .«9neB aill ot ^aat 0O» cmT OOS 

:tx^ .^IfiXvoXef saw ntm$ Aif* to •X9«lx(ir atfy axM «H .&«ycf3)iX 

.^£<ll ftAsa «r ra9J!99Aiq *Xiif(Mio9uB td^r ir«» htlM •ti%iihi nOM 

3m tn»inMl aid loitwa aii 9«iaa(»«i ady aohI faat at of Oa tiMKfA oaffs 

~^9l BnlAAAX «'uia ads' notl ftte A^^ntn hlmot 9ii um rt«t «« >l aa<noA 

f}ia'x;r »d;r aoi^eot/A asaa m(# aI fa«w kmm t%A9 7t jatrwa aH ,btM*t 

t->n!% ,&ntfeT8 *()Et tttA« 1a« adiT ffOict Avoft ;ras 'oe .inio:^ ar>f 

-■f-iS"--. ■ . r.llRtr^tn hnutn^ 9itt fl« anw ♦fic on 

.}fii»«t}ltj> : »ivoo IbaopftoTtq t*w ?I .adXifdf ow# iltlw 

•*r *^7-o ?..' '>ni tfA to tfittMup^nno tuo^n aX dlufi ■d:- 

•asvw aif;: ■ " '^^'^ 

nlMii arf* 6«ji s*-^'Siw 'ii» ad* tXqq« inimt^^ 9dt tlt^-' . -oJa ifoA 

-.i-j »v«^ ad doxdw tm tntoq inX$ mvi\ »aat 05X «r 05X #«•€<• Aaq<l«*a 

.iHMrtiA adtf lid IAS jftXaiAAA siir tA MLtloiMa to nuid wAob «dT .Xjuimi* 



aeMl« rl^t in thm ©«at®r tmA c-ai*irl®i It ov«r the er©8«iiif, fim 
oeoiipftBte were 3?endi©r#d unooasolous anA «ll»d sOhortly fhtr^af t^r. * 

k% th» ©lose of all tht «^rldeao€^ <aRfena&nt mad© a motion 
for suR Inftjmet^A ¥«r41«t In it« f&ver, which v&« aeni»d, &nd it is 
«rgtt«4 la this 3ourt that th© iaa true t ion should li«5V« beta gima 
lM»aaac« «!U»fen€Ai}t was not negligent in protecting tlw oroselAg nap 
la ^e ©p€2?ati@n of its ty».in, and beeaues Mr. L^utr w&s gailti' ©f 
eontrlJaatory aegllg»jse«. In Gas« no, 40919* v« h&ve htld that «© 
far &» pj^teetlofk af the srosslng «iM th« opffpatlon of th« train 
V9r« eoi:^««2ia«d the qu«stiOfi of the tasglt^n&e of the defeaS&nt timi» 
projMirly su^ttt«d to tli« Jury, Th« ero«slng &e aftlntaln©^ «ag un- 
u«tt&lly aim|?«r«i« &n4 tJi« Jjupy eoBlt ppoptrly f Ittd tlis^t sl»fgnd&nt 
urais m»glige&t in failing to have a flAgaan ftt t]h« ei^oseiiig at th« 
tlaw of th« aoei<U»i}t and in falling t-o s^f; ^at r#«»@2ii%My taf«! 
lll^tii and iifiialK v«r« ffi«int%in«i4 thftre. ^^^e think, too, tli« qiuestlon 
of whethor there wae aogli|t«B'®« 1<bi the operation of the train vae 
also for th4» Jury, wo havo «e holi3 in tM ooepanion ea««, and tho 
exanination of tho oridonoe in thift eaae doe* not persuade us to & 
dlfforcnt eonolusioA. ?^*e Qpp v, Fryor . S94 111, 5S8. 

?ho quettion of tSii? eontrihutory n«gllg^«noe of Mr, Lauor 
l>r«S0!ite » qu«ftion different fron that v« doeided in th« other oa««. 
Mr. Lauar vfa« driving tha auton^obile &nd was in control of It. If 
tawra ie&» i^efllfoneft in driving it it va« his nogligrenoa, k» in 
the eth»r eaea so ber^. aoodma^ v, C, & S. I. 'Ky, ?'^ . . 24S 111, lESj 
MorgKa ▼, uoQjfcf ord. B. It J. «y. Q^ . . 261 HI, App. 127; (^r##nwald v, 
Baltiaoro & 0. H. Co . , 5SS2 111, 6g?j and r^rovengano v. 111. Cg^nt . 
n. R. Co . , 357 111. 192, aro oitod and rolled on. Aooording to tha 
easei, it wa« for the plaintiff in th« first inistaneo to |»roSue« 
«OM» evidaooe ttndiaic to show ordinary ear© on th« part of Mr. J.a««r, 
1!h«rt va« an oyewltiatss, and no «vid»noe *ta« off ©rod or roeotved at 
to th« h«Mt« of tho daooaeod vlth rof#r«noe to car^. The evldftnoe 
shove that at the tiae of the ^eoidi^nt Mr. L&u«r v&tt forty-nine years 
of age. He vae in «tood health; hie esresight vas good. The eTidenee 



Bi ti An , ;->v«l •>! at S(>ih%9v b9S»v%S%mt mm %tft 

t.^-r?.'o_ .if! bX««rt« rreiJoirttMl •!** 9»M Siuco mlAt al 6««yut 

i^f*-} -y^ffn t. ttt»j^l^^n ton •«« 9ttMtB9\itb MVAattf 

.•«iii*)|lX8Mi xi{»t0cflt#n«o 

9/1/ 4^41 ^lm%tn9 tit ia mmar$»l\ » tifti ftt naiXlat al ia«3ilB««i «««^ 
•!«• xXBf«««««*^ '«!& ••• M 9«lXl«t Kl &IU iTflAlkleoA uLt lo mU? 

•aw 0jtfti} wit to noXt M*t9qe wit «i —n9%tt%9K •«« «^»dl t«dltiiw t« 

a&atwio^ ;ro« nenh tHl«o »litit fli M«i«AiT« tdf t0 aoXlanlwut* 

,R" ••>'" t2B~ .floXtuXonoo #n«Y*ttll» 

sofTAlgtilSAii fsejTiMf/TfnAo mat to iiol9«Mip sift 

•i«4« i«£(»o Mi* ni A«M9«J^ Mr tMtiS aeirt 9fi(nAttilb fieX9a»Bp a titiswktn^ 

lo X<n;faoo nl a«r bam •Xitfono^iM M(« ^AXviid^ tiitir fUAd ,%1i 

»Xyrf«wyt^5 ;rST rxi 198 «.St9 , r^^ , 1^, *, t« «^y^^^ «▼ JUUtil 

■" f^omiJnrsI fanll «rfJ nl Ytttntmlq wtt ^9lt •-»* »1 ,ai»A«« 

t« £>v^v< .u^^ ^o &n«lTc •turn «»ii«£>i'r« <m> ^a .••acirXwAt* a« •*« evftil? 
sofitAMvs tJlT ,tiC4ft» ojr tAnn9lk»-f i»Xw hmmAmitmb mdt t« »#X«rAii «Ar 9t 



Also ««aas %& cshow be vae driving thft •ali«»bll« sduth oa ^uelid 
»tr«mi0 «t tim speed of si^ut S5 t© ;^ all»e p«r hear, fh« jury 
oould eonelu&e tlmt $uoh speed lndl@«ited due os^r® on his pm.rt, i>«- 
feaftanl; vajr* thAt pel lee offl9«XMi eoaXS s«»« th« e&rs on tli@ ei^sslng 
«li«a *t a difitanee of 1^ fe«t. The iBftwne* Is that Mr, Lauer 
•httttld hart »#«« th«m, fhi« Is unfair slaoe at th«^ tlnw* the of« 
fie«r« vl«*f»d tte« aeene of the acola«nt i^« trala of cars »«s parked 
aeroes the «tr««t aa4 at a atandetllX. Thm h«Adllgiit on the engine 
(uallke the situation whea Mr. Laitar approaehed th9 eroa^lag) aada 
the train vlaible. Aleo, there wae a spotlight sa the equad oar of 
thet pelioeaieB a* they approached* The lantern used by Herndon in 
hie atteaq;»t to warn the approaehing autamobile, at ve have already 
said, had a esall eleetrlo bulb, and there v&s evldenee froa which 
the Jury alght well have believed that it would not have been teen 
by Mr. Lauer under the eireuntetaneec in the exercise of due oare. 
Hemdon eaye It was aoonllght, but thle was oontradioted and eeeae 
iBprobable, U#> radon givee no e vide nee tending to show negligence 
on the part of Mr. Lauer,vith the exception that he Scept on driving 
toward the eroeeing at a jwjderate rate of speed notwlthstaftdinK the 
approaching train. It Is apparent Lauer was looking tonead of hiss, 
and If he had eeen the train It le fair to yreeuae he would have 
•topped. The oases are all to the effect that the question of ©on- 
trlbutory nefligenee, under «Jioh clroun»«tanee», is for the Jury. * 
railroad oroesing is, of oourse, known to be dangerous by ev<t;;ry 
person of experienoe. The oaees eay one approaehln^ a oroeeing 
•hoaXd look and listen, but the eaees also cay that it is not at all 
tiaes and under all cirouastanees negligent not to do so. Here sll 
the elrouastanees ae t© the physical situation at the eroaelng, the 
eondltion of the weather, the looation of the train, etc. aust be 
taken Into eoaeideration. fhe following eases Jur-tlfy a holding 
that the queetlon of Lauer* s contributory neglig«noe, if any, was 
for the Jury* Lannon v. City of Chicafeo . 1S9 til. ,4pp. 89»; C. <fe &. 
I, fty. Co. V, Beaver . 19© 111. 34; I^undsulst v. Chieafto Rys. Co .. 



vuil «>li ,10^1^1 f^ »iiXX« OS w AS tufld* )• i^*«<3* «dt im mmm* 

•t« fti& MiX# tttr tji ••alK <KiAMiif ti aixff .ami^ a#M erjui i>iiMuto 

•»^ ^&l>« Art? «o «d^X;fi»q» A 8«w VMiil ,»«i«» ••itflalv AiAiJ ttel^ 

•Uti>«»%lA *v«it 09 •« |«iit4fe»Uu«t ^iA9»»%^%» •lit ini«»r «f ^fpMTlA mlA 

i4 (TTAa i9a hlM9v tl t»(it b9f9il»<f »v*d lilt ifmi vtul wU 

,tn»o 9ub !• •«Ian«xt ft<f> ml ••ttMi»mu9%lo uttii 9«liiM> is«»«U *tH \4 

^«t«« JM* &fd9ilMiiln«» •mt •IMi lad ,}diiai4Ni« •#« ti a^ct A«ftaa»8 

9aXvii(J» no 7<l»3( fwi tmii aoi9%«tx« Mil iUlit«<K*«AJ .ih t« lijtt) 019 «0 

A •t'Xtfl <*<!> tot Ml ^tfOAtimtivxl^ iiOiA 'lotow ,»««ftiiXiM xtoiuattSt 

XXjft tiieK ,cMi ©fo o# 4(m Aflr«;iXX||k«ii »««£MA;r»«ii«ni» *-.-^. .. *;« ,I>i»a ««fflX* 

«<U ,^aX»aeao ML? ;»« aoX<iui«i« l»»Jt«vK[ «ri« oiT «« •#«ii»>«««q%X« w& 

ft£f ^sjijw .&»# (iiX^'s^ ftiil lo A»it«o»X 9At ^imi$»mi wO \m stoltlbifo 

^Ibloil ft x^msiit «»««« v^Uw^XXot «kf$7 »fl«i;l4rx«ftisaoe c»Ai aM«l 

ai&w «%ii« ti «9aA»iXXsMi v^'^^'^-^'^^''^^ ftWatiAJ \9 Aoi^asjuf) ««{t #A<£r 

.■-i..^..,l isca .<?i?A ,1X1 «8X . <»-ut<»ifiD to tari.o ,v atwii^ 5^i#l «ri* «lc 



SOS 111. 1O0J fct#.rf- V, Chicago ajfi. ^0. , 307 111. gOt| B.^nry v. 
C. e. g. <fe ^t. L> ny. Co .. 236 111. 319; COttlt«r ▼, I. C. ft. H. Oq . . 
?>«4 III. 414? ffijrlor V. Alton & baetam ». K. Co. . 860 111, App, 
293i Oswftia V. ~^x^nd TrmilE v>egtem %. Co .. tS3 111. %p. 86. 

It i« furttier Q9nt«nS*d that ttoe court err«d In »©41fylag 
(lef«AdAnt*« r«s|tt«9t»d laetruetlon K©. 6. 'ilfeils InetruetlOB «ft®r 
«t&tia|f til® rale ©f law A.pplic&bl« t© contributory n»fllg«R«« e©a» 
talA«d tiil« furth#r e^^ataa©* — -"fhe a&tursl lantiQGt of (M»if- 
pro««rv«tloa dooa aot give rl«« to any pr^eaaiption that tfes dLtooaetd 
VA8 U8in« d»« oaro aad eautlon for hie ©wr safoty. " thts oourt re- 
fused to giva ^« Inatntetion a« taii^«r«a aM aoSif lad It W strliang 
out tlxLt la«t »eatene«» than gave It ae modlflad. Th» defendant 
anptaa tliat aa thara ««« an oy#vltnai« to tha aeoldaat (th« lkraiL«.aMin, 
Heradon), t^ praouaptloa of dua o&ra did aot obtain aad oites 
Q f9^mm, V. CfeleaiEO 4 E. I. Hy. Co . . 84a 111. ■•■vpp. 128 J ^OTlr^f ▼. 
Chie&g:o City ay. Co .. 188 III, App. 8Sa, 86»j ^aA M2£&J^ ▼• i*-.£s— £• 
4 i^t. L. ?^. Co. . gSl 111, S0Sy910. JDafendaat nays thtra w*i ao 
evldanee whatoTer of Hut habitc of tha dec«a«ad at to pradenca or 
tb« «xerGi«uD of oar« and e&utloa in tho ordinary affaire of life 
or any otbar faet throwing light apon hii »x»r«l»a of ordinary eataf« 
At th« ti»a of V&e acoidant, and tJbt&t there was, thffr«fore, no ^asis 
In the raoord upon ndiioh th« pre ausipt Ion of due e&ve arising from 
tht natural iastinot of self-prftj^rvation eould )>a baoad, ^s a 
natter of faet» in no plaoa in the trial of this oau««» so far a« 
the reoerd. diioloe««, did plaintiff oontaad or rely oa any pre* 
aoitption of due eare arifiag froa the aatural laetinet of leelf- 
praaervation. Uo each rule was ooataiaed in any instruotlon giv^m 
at plaintiff's request, and thie sattar, la so far ae it it in the 
reoord, is inj^eted l»y the ebiectien a&de to ^^ deletion of thia 
eenteaoa tnm the ins? true t ion* 

la instruction f^o. IZ, given at tiw? requeet of plaintiff, 
the Jury was olearly told that n^lle '&« law did not require of 
plaintiff's Intestate an extraordinary degree of oare for hie owa 



•a* 

' '-,*l:-,.n^.,.«^ — t r , >ix 

^41 t« ^««li«jti x«TJvy««i •/<?*->«>• ••ottflM tcuShiir) ■litt i»nJLsl 
-- i t^iitrts »(fY • ,t#tli5 id X(i\ nottusLO hatt 9X»o •«]!> "ifii^u %Mm 

. .tf .9 •» XXsw^K 6m at«a ,6e8 .<iqA .lit 881 . .cD .tH T^iO ca^oliJS 

•A lA^^ «T;»rf^ ax«» taAfto«»l<»a .018 ^0« ,ttt Xd9 . .oD .^^' .J .IC A 

no «»fl*bii<tq e« •a J^*t«M»J6 «<& t» a^i^Aii wtf Ito i»v*«julw tanalblTa 

«tii to tiUt^ Y%«n2fH« M(f III iMtifMAO £n« v^m to m1»«i»x» •Oi 

iyt»9 vtAtilh^ to 9iRirs«x« tltf itoqui tif^lX iMiiv^titf tt«t ttdiTo XM «• 

• £««4 00 ^A^Otolftdl «»«« 9TO<C9 tsif:^ ftlU «tA«iblO0A »tti lo Mii^ mO ^« 

m^'ili mtftJtiM «tAO •»& to 0oit^«ii«<nq wtl iloiiftf noq^w Moort m& mI 

. ^SAcr fi«t fiXiieo jiol^«T%ot«Kq-tXM to foAi^afli X«ti7;raa adif 

«« tut oa «a«uso ai/l^ te liUti nitS nt MaXq on al ,tMt to 'fOt#ofl 

"Wtq x»A no tl<K •»» taolffod tlkl^AiAlq M£» ,«»»oX9ali» Moaon ad^ 

-tisa to toal^Tael X«^&»iifl %a3 se^t if)lai<U a^tAO ouA lf> noi^imffa 

(t9viS fiOiioij^tjftni TOA al ft^nlatnoo a«w alirx i{o«a o^ jviaaotqr 

9xi^ Al al ti ta tsjit oa nl (la^toa aliit btiM ,taoupa^ £* iai:fiaJiXq jfa 

alilt to noitoXalt ati} otf oibMi «fti»ool<fo ««!# \tf fta^ootnl ai «>KOoanc 

. V :> :* ' ^ ) 1-1 nal •Ai /soirt ooaaf ooa 
. •ll^nli. ■■ isypon -sdj j."^. egyJ:^ ,.'.1 .0-! no/^out^afil iiX 

te •^iup^-i i9a bib WMl otft oXi^ f«iCr filo^ iJMa«Xo aaw i^t •'i' 



•af*t;'. It w«« r«qulr«d of him &n<^ hXs next»9f<-lEln t^&t at &nd 
1>«for« th« tine of th% Injury or&Xtmrf «iar« should b« «x9rel««d 
1& vl«v of all th« f&®te sn& eireum^t^Enees ehovn bi' the proof, and 
thAt vh«t w&e ordiUftT/ ear« vouldl d8p«nd upon th9 cirouisstanoee of 
«aeh 2»&rtloul«T e<KS<i, ^«t it w«c saeh o«re &t a |M»r&on of ojcdin&ry 
pruft«aee woul«^ ezertXm ttnd«r th« e«ate or 8l%ll&r @lr«usx!tAno«s, 
In othor w»M9f plAlatlff trlod tM easo ttpon the tlu»orir ttrnt it 
wftii iftoue&ent upoa him to prove th« tj:«relt« of ordinary oare by 
tlio dee«aa«d. ^e hold the eourt did oot err In eo modifying this 
inetruotlon. 

It is urged that the oeurt erred In its ruliag upon the 
«teis«iOB aoa rejeetioa of evldenee and in partleular that It was 
exTor to admit in evldenee >:xhlblts 1, 2 and 3, being photographe 
of the railroad eroeelng at whloh the aecident ooourred. fhere vas 
testlaoay before the eaaw were admitted as to eaeh &u4 every oae 
of thea that it waa a eorreet, adequate and proper rtpreeentatlon 
of the piece where the accident oocurred, and this by sev«@ral 
wltneceee. The elaln agent of defendant, who had been faffllllar vlth 
the eroesiag for twenty year* and irho test if led, R&de no 6t%te»»nt 
tending in aay vay to «^ov that the photograph* were not fair 
repre eentatione of the phyeieal eituatlon at the oroeelng »hen the 
aooldent ooeurred. there was no error In thle respeet, Srownlle 
^« Srownlle . 357 111. 117 j People v. Herbert. 361 111. 34. 

Over the objection of defendant the oourt reoelved In 
evldenoe a certified a&py of the weather report of the tveather 
Bureau of Chicago for the aonth of Noveaber, 1937, from whleh plain- 
tiff read to the Jury Information stiewa on the report for the day 
of th9 aooldent, November 80, 19S7. Defendant objected that the 
report of the ^^eather ^reau at Chieago was laadsiilseible to prove 
veather eondltlons In Chieago Heights, twenty-eevea sillee atray, and 
now contend* that the oourt erre^ In allowing the same in evidence, 
®i^l-»g I^tUdfelder v. East tsidt Levee Dlgtrlot. IM 111. App, 8®2, 
iA«re reeords of the iieather Bureau of 't. Louis, Kls«ourl,w»r« held 



..;.•.... ^r ..;,iA-i»«*tx»« »irf &»- .«..■. te >»ti«f«« ••« li tX9*i«« 

d«aXe'%»x.9 eot j&Iirexit •^at ti««l&nco xtitlal ntit to MUt tit •'s«)«tf 

fl taut t«#«ii^ •tfl' A»«f M*» M^ C»*l«t tlltfii»Xq .sft-s^v ^Mlt* «Z 

xef MUM tVJwUKe tc i»91m:mc» «tft m^nin ot ai/i ft«(|B tflotfaiKMU %m 

%ts& }ifitiMbtm <Mi iti %f ten bth t'un9 tit h£m£ •« Jk^MMmHth 9dt 

»4ts 0(>Q» m^lui atl AX bmvf t<itfQ» «& tJMit Iraiiit ai tl 

Asv ti taUt %iiiXii9lt^ui4( fli &«• ft«ft<i*lT« %« fwltaalat Afla aolARlMbu 

»rftPtai#^<3 ;i!MiiMf «^ A«!* ^ «X «titd/<tx i »o«a&lva ai fiafea ot x»vf 

•av a««H9 jk^vuieoo ta^tntuk adt rialiftf fa jiiOaaava hatnllm. 9&f ta 

afio x'xtvTa poM doaa «^ aa tet^ijiia •«•« asaa aht aaotacf vaeatltaal 

n«|la7aatumia« fa^TH! Aaa ataji|Mfta «tM««M A aaw, f 1 f /utt aaift ta 

Xaa^vaa t^ aXiit ^oa «&«VYi/da« laa^Xcaa atfT av^iffv Mala «i^ "tD 

ffjfv tAtllMal naiKi toA Mfar ,^{»ateataA t« Itfa** arlslo atfT .«M»»fltlw 

jaaaatst* an aftaa «&»itlta«t ««la tea. avaat Jiftmwt lat snlaaawt ailt 

«sXAi stm 9tmr a H^ai^ a f iiq ^if* taiff vada at ipw \aa ai wintBma 

9iti ntdif ^gfllaaata atft t» tuatmattt lM9tm%04 wm "ka anaUafnaaavq^ 

lISMUfA «taa<iaat altft aJt 4»««a o« aa« ataiff Jbmvw^ taad^loaa 

a% JLStim 4jajl3m .▼ UttSi l-fW -^ W 0lliflK13& .^ 

fti b^ta&9% f^uiaa a«ft tuatealiaii ta aatAtaaitfa atCt %vrQ 

KiiHSMm mtif to tvoqtn <tacttaaw atft ta ^maa AaXtitnraa a aaaaAlra 

"■alMSii tsalstg mant ,7sex ^^latfoavaK ta dt«a« flitt taft a9aoiil& ta u»vuA 

%^ 9flt •Mt ^'xoqfti ndS aa aweiii aaitawMlnl tmrt ailt at Jbaan ttit 

agsf $0di JbataHtfa tnateatad .TSdl .Ot 9«<te«f«tt ,t«aftJUMM aift ta 

»van(c| e$ aJtflaaiiiAaiil aaw^ a«aaililO ta uMm}^ ^atitaaif aift to t«a«tKti 

nft «t«wa awlla Aav»«*xtaftvt ,tttrf»iaa aq »wiK 9 ftt aMiitiHiaa <xatftaair 

.•anabiva at aaaa aUt ^ttivaXXa ta ]&a>x*xa mnm 9A» tmm iAaataaa vaA 

.9ft$ ,<4A .in »«x fiiiiitr **^*^ ^^^ *f*^ -"^ iiiffniBiH ts^^ 



waie posit !▼« eirld«n©» by '^r, SAH#r, ». pollct of fleer «f SMeag© 
Height f, to «hff «ffeot %hSi% on th» night of th® Aeeliteiit tli# pav»- 
awnt was lay and the aif^t oXou4y. w« ti^ilnli the tvli«ae« wa* &i- 
■Isfll^e ft8 tending to elu>v th® stcite of th« wsatli^r on th&t day. 
(jfe^pftgo & V^ortime^tmrn ll^i, , Co . v. Tr^yee , 17 111. App, 15®, Iti^e 
{^fUji^fe^^y e&sei on itfMob d«f«n<l«at r«lle«, l» only »b«tr&et««l ^t 
It l« ftpp«i^iit from the Abetraot that the ieaue in tsh^t ee.®« eon« 
e«f»a«d th« qoantlty of wftt«r, whl®li &t the tl»» In qu@stie»it vas 
being A]f«ln«d from the land frost « r^aot® point of th@ eeuoty, snd 
tho App«llat« esurt h«l<S tijat th» St. Louis vo&th«r report w®s aot 
ocw^etent proof &• to th» pftrtleul«r quaotlty of if«.t«r fallliii in 
tlitt Citr of EjMit ^t. Unii«, llliaoie. wo hol& Vim oourt 4iS not 
•rr in ^« adaieeion of this evidenoe. 

It l« oonten<il»rt tans court orr«« in ft<!»ltting t«»tliiton|r a« 
to e&T9 ^ioh «t tho ti£B« in q.u«etion w«r« in And About the oroscinf 
but not att&ohod to tfeo trotn wbieb th^ eagin* w»» ijushlai:, So- 
fondant ©bjoetod upon the ground th*t if th« purpo»6 of thit srldoaoo 
VAft to brii^ ©«t th« faot that other oari? standing on adjuoent 
tr&oks would obetruet the view of the Qroesin^: to on« A^proKOhlni; 
fro» the north, thoro wn» no allegation of nogXigonoo in this re«3>««t 
in tlu> ooaplaint* ^nd feMOkl^y v, Handtl Brott . . 33S 111. 3«®» 3715? 
l£. '^' v^ & n. *. i^. Co. , 347 111. 4S7, 495, ulth tod#rson v. 



C. S. X. at i\ llaf. Co .« 243 111. App. 3.57, and l|r^p v. i2IiJ^i£3MlM 
By. Co. . see 111. 4pp. 182, nr« oit«d. The ovidonoo if»f «d»i»Jibl« 
for the pctrpoeo of ahowing thA g:ftn«r«il «itufttion at th« oreaaing 
AltSkOti^ m% particularly allegod a« n«glig«neo in the oo»s)l«iRt. 
C. 4 S. I. ay. Co. V. #favfy, 199 111. 34. 

It ia urgod hero, aa in tho ooapj&nion 01100, that tho 
danui^a avardod to sd&intiff are exooaslvt. Aa wo pointod out in 
that case, however, whftre there are lines^l deeoend&nte th® law 



9M Mlt 19 so t4ilf f»«tl« wQ e9 ,t#xi;|l«i( 

ail ^i t«w Sttmi 

■sif a« n te m'Siitf. ">C'9-:^ inibautt aj4 oltfitaJUB 

a« ,%}i}tf«>o «xi^ to #al04| ttftmn « Mirnt l>iuii «jf9 ■•vt tMfi4fii> $iil*<( 

■s AplAt alant ^At 0i J»ttf»«ttA ton fiNf 

990 " ~ - ' 'i nl »o»9?ti£a»ii to Aol^Aft^^-U <Mi onir fn(o4;r «ji(9'»M) 90$ sKn% 

•"f ssxis^^^ t^e* ,^^ ■''-' '''■' •;■.;;,■■?' t>^, i*!>4 g .'^aaliM 

aX<(li«l«^ a^v «»ioi&Xto «tjv ...:'■ ,-r.r'^ tj"" . ,c:. ^^ 

lpiia««no *rtt iTA iiojUAiiti ^ . J io\ 

tit SaHS ,fl»n-;i» no^ftg.qrros- flrfff at »« ,9^*rf {»«$%» al tX - 

w*j "^j^'J asrnitfen -. ,-t«>v»w««{ ,a«iAO 9*rfJ 



l^jMsittats pm&unl&r^ XoiPi fr&m ttm fast »f 4«atJi, .HiMSiE ^» MMS^* 
S30 IXl. en? t^k^aiiys V. g. 0. S. » ,^ 3t. „ L^ R. ft> Q^ . . B5'3f 111. 1£>4. 
^e find no r(»Y»peibl« error la th« y©e©i»6, ftM th« Jl»4g« 
fuint will bt aff lra«A, 

O'Connor and MeSur«ly, JJ., e^sneur. 



40778 




com am 



s«abdr» of s l»ndh0lfi«r«' P#- 

A, HARRIS, M, mtm<MU^, m h, sauk 
siCUMitx Mfxcp^ S^as or mEBOYaAH, 

will and^«8ti«B«nt of J©a#lM Joh&an* ) 

and A, cl AlXli & CO., « ^l«iw®rt ) 

iippell«ea. ) 







4 8 



ME. JUSTICE KcSUHELY mW^^nm fHS OPl^^IQH Of tHK COimf. 

S«pt«»fe«r 7, 19ZB, pl&intlffe fllfrd theli' oo8S|viaiat eii«i«lat 
4ef«ttd*at« with eoneplraof and fraud l» eoftweetlon »itfe tte© hendllag 
«f Ijonds «vld«nel»»g aortgage lad»bt««!U»»« ©n e«rtal,R r«al ^«tatf »^d 
a«kin« for an aceountiag and oth«r relief J th« »att«r was r^ferrma to 
a flatter «b« took «ndaii<i« and reported, i-^eomstiendlag tbat tb« aacAd- 
«d ooaplalnt filed referuary 1, 1339, be dleaiseed; %h» sh&neellar ap- 
proved tbe report and euetalaed the aotisae to dleaies. &na piaiR- 

tlffi appeal. 

1!he Aabland Ind«etrlee Building Corporation oa J&saary 1, 

l©g6, issued Iti first mortgage 6 per eent bond* iR tiri* prlaelpal 
«UH of ^1,500,000. Tbeee bonds were eeoured by a t3?'a»t de«d fr©a tlis 
Aehlattd corpora tlda a»d iiaurlce ;toth»ohll4, one of the d«f«adaat«, 
to The Poretian Trust and fairings SfefiJt, a» tru6t©«» e&nveyirtg real 
estate properties aad pledging 3456 «hare« of 1100 par value |»r©f er- 
red stock of Harris Brothers Gompany, a Delaware eorporatlen; the 
trust de*d provided a sinking fund to be used for th® retlreaent of 
these bondai they were also eeeared by a guaraaty affreeaeat exeouted 
by Maarlee Rothschild and four other guarantors (two of whoa are now 
dead). This a«ree»e&t guaranteed the payaeat of the principal and 



; , -...:.;..< . r :/. ^ .0 ifUUV 






,. . .- - ->. ... - -» 

( «fln i'itto^ lo 9a«a«: XXii 

WKlltmd wcU icf^Xw aoi»o«iifloo ill bunt bam x^anlttmmw ctfiw ttiMAavltA 

of i^«':<x«trx tiiw ^tYfiiiH Ml? :l9XX«x itMOo AM iffitttifMM a« %9\ }^XM»m 

•^A noXX«ftii*i{« wf» {b««»iMUb vtf «ti«X ,X fusinrftl fitXlt tiiXAX4|p#» A* 
HRi»X4 b9i» «ftaiJi»X6 o« BiteXtMr «ifr iwlMttun bOM tfqatx «& ft»T«<tf 

• X«»q€{« attiJf 

.1 truufiM^ it« f!oX?««e<rx#9 »«IAXXcf€ ••X<K#a«ftiiiI AiiAXcfiiA •£» 

lmq,ltnilt% ftij:^ ni aftnotf ]rn»o ift^ 8 •la^t'KMB #»<xit afl bmmJt «dStX 

flijif aeil £i««b ttttni b %<i b^iu^w vtw •finotf mcilT .ooo«oo$,XI lo wn 

,»}i3A6n«l»Jb «d;r lo ftiso ,hXXifo«<U«^ •oiv«iK I^jm iieif««»4te« ^AAXdftA 

Xft«t afllt«vn«ii ««»ftti,'n[# tA ,3{iii»€ tSUXvA^S JbM #atnT iuM«ntot •iff •# 

--nolft^q tiiXAV «tA<i 00X$ to •mjtito M^t ^aXtlNiXll fiM ••i;rY*t(«iiqi •#«#•• 

10 tii«>»'sXf»i( wit «•!: &««ar Arf ©> Aflirt sAlibil* « b9blrin<i b*mb tstnt 
b*itf9X9 tammtytbti ttJUfXAiqi « ttf J^*ti<9»t oaU •'«•« ^d9 }aA«W mmI* 
«oa t^* «o4w to owt) MoJiwiwiqi ^»*ro 'M«»l bmm blMd—m^ —i%ttmH j0 



-«- 

interest on tB@ bonds « ttpea th# oondltloB ^ti&t wii«n«Ti^r %im prlaeipal 
MMvunt of bond* out«tft&din|; ««• ro&m6«d to ll,@OO»00O ell ll&1}llltl99 
uador tlift gu&r«t«ty v«r® t^rsBlftetftd and tfe« gu&paalore il8eh&rg«€. fho 
FoiNBSAn bank, as trast«e, was later repl&e«d by S«f«R«lA&t First 
Slfttlonal Bank of Chieago. Th» bond l@«uo mmt redueed by pajrmffnte to 
11,1415,^0. January I, 1932, th«r« wan a dtf&ult lit tli« payawat of 
intert»t &M alio defaults In %hm f^aysaat of taicat for th<» fB&rs 
192a to 1956, Inelusivt, 

A bondholdsrt' oo«sltt«« wa« forsod to haadl$ tb^ situation 
undor an agr«»»«nt da tot i>«G««b«r 31, 19;!§1, and apr^roxlsataly 90 p#r 
e«nt of the out«>tandlBf bonds vev9 deposited with this oommittf^^l 
January, 1@36, pursuant to th« ra^u«»t of tbe ooasnltte^^, the first 
national lank, as truistee, offered for «al« at publle auction tbe 
Barrie Hrothere Comjwat^ stoek pled^red under the trust me-d, ^iaieh *?-a8 
|!^tiroliaeed by l^e oomalttee for ISSOO and th» proeeeds dlatrilmted to 
or held for the bondholder*. In 1936, prooeeding* to reorganise the 
Aehland Industrie e Gilding Cos^oratlon were Inetituted under t^etloa 
T^B of the Bankruptcy act la the federal Gourt for the yerthern 
Metriot of IllinoiR, and a plan of r^organleation waii eabmltted and 
oonf Iraed in that proeeedinf on August g, 1938, At the re.queet of 
the oosKittee and beoauee of the pendeney of the reorganleatlon j^ro** 
oee&lnfR, the flret ^^atlonal Bank, ae tznaet#i«, refrained from in> 
etltutlng proeeedlni^e agalnet the guarantors. Maurice .Hotheehild, 
one of the guarantor*, offered to tt»e trustee il4S, 30G of outttandlng 
Aehland bonds on o end! t ion th«it they be eenoeled and the iruarantor« 
relea»«'d. The trustee I'efused thl» offer beoaa«e of an ambiguity in 
the provislone of the trust deed and the guaranty agreement with 
reference to the trustee's powers and authority to aeoept this offer. 
In 193B, pendini? the reof^nigatlon prooeedlnge, the -ieeiirlty 
Matlonal Kank of iheboygan, ©iwner of 19000 of the bonds, demanded 
that tJxe P'iret fietlonal Bank, ae trustee, Institute legal prooeedlngs 
against the guarantors, fhle desiand vas refused by the trustee. 



••l>iXi<f4iX XI« O0e,O00,X^ 9$ »»Mltn •«« i^l&fUitteM «Ao«d le fAiMM 

.•ri«»x<ufi ,«w;«x wr «fi#x 

!»*;m«ne9 »ldf ff^Jtw bmitmtiHfmt tvmr ifelMwr ifiiA««fttif» vd^ ^b tUM 

•iff Mif 804 misais<i 9m •!«• lel: d«ii«lte , ••taint •• «<nat XM«Xt«K 

«<&^ xiolfiw ,*••& ^tirtt ttilt *[a^tf i»«^»X^ 3(»9t« xa«<(«oO •<iMlt»iff •I'Turil 

.:> ft«twliftai6 »»B» » »t^ •dt ««A 098811^ ^el ••ttiMHM «ir fd b9mMajtfttm 

mds «ai«iAyto«n ot •9a1**»»««« ,Mei «I . I'i ti lai— < Arit lel ftXwt «> 

jvM«it«««i Mit tvit t«ii«o XMflftsi «ubr aji fk t i itj wi tf iw g «at t« iT? 

ME» fevttXflcfM tew wifaii wifi »i i"i lo ««X<i • &«• <«X«IU1XX )o t9l«»«M 

I0 ^««»f»#^ wit SA .aetl ,t tKjiiMA no y iO ti wio ^ f r^irtt «1 AiMnrltM* 

yt<^ jt«i?Ajiin«iv«<M «<tf )• ^n;«6aa4r A^tt ^ *•»•••« Jtaii ••ttJmlMi MtT 

-«X nvst l>»flX»il»t ,«»«t«i«t »« ,3liMi« XaiioXtAH t»iXH «dt ,«i|ii^bNi«to 

l«XftMAir8tii« !• OfW,CJ'Xi» 9»lai}4t mt» 9S Bi ' liflftt ^jiWtWWUtili Mlt te »ll« 

i>;totn»tatfi Mi^ i^flJi &»X8«m«o wtf xiUtt t^idt tmet XfrnoA fl» •AtoMMf SmmliUA 

B.i ^titt^XtftMl «• !• ••cWBtrf i«tto >»X«» ft»»irt«ri «9tttiitt jirff ,!b99»mtm 

jStiw tftMM*^* iffmMMtfi Wilt A«« ««•» tuiwt ©rtt Ic 9«©X»lvonq «tlr 

.'jsl"*© aXrft t<f9«e« •* %itt0^m btm «t«wo« «*«»tMiirt arft «? »B«rt»li«i 

ttx^i»R«i<^ «tii:r «»^(a»8*»o^ mt9mitiMi/timm «fft ^itXftiniqt (SSOX itf 

ft4Mwm& ,»MraK:( vi^ !• OOQtt t« mmw ««i«9«otfM* Iw aiiM8 JbM«lfiiil 

*;p!ift«««M9^-? lj!iSi>X e^tft ItBrtt ,»«if»»^ «• ,:««»« IMW J t««' t#tH #rft t«A 

.»».t«o*xy ♦♦it ^ i&«»«Bt«^ »i»* fl«R»«ft altff .•-WtJWMfiTI •!» t«i!iJ»a* 



1 

&bA the fipat KAtloa&l SihsIs., as trust®*, se«ls,iaf 4 weaty Ja!%-BE®nt 
&g«.in«t tii« gu&rantors &nS. an order emjolaing %hm trast«« fr©m ac- 
e«pt;lng %hm %»n&»T fey Maiirl«e a©tlj«ehildj the truete* fll»d ita 
saswwr t© thl»; 8ttfeB«<?M«ntly, »n4 b€f©r® li«iirlng, %hm ^»li«laoygiitt btuik 
fll««. its* e««i3nlet ©trnplAlnt, r^oitli^, ttefet elaea tMe 8©affi«ii©«««nt ©f 
tl»« ©rlglflftl :p-iroe»©4ing it haa inv«!stlg»t«4 th« fin&nelftl oon^ltioa 
of tht guarantor* »u« aew beli«?'ve4 It t© bs for tl"»# fe«8t Interest of 
all c©n<f«ns«A tfeat S©tfifc#efelld*s t«n€§r b« »ce«pt«S, a.i»<3 ii«k»d for an 
ordor dlr«etlng the First ^-^tlos«l iaak, aa trtattte* %& ae$«pt thii 
off»r, e&its«l tht bead® s,M exe«»tg a r»l«5ia»€) t« th« fttarantor*. ^4# 
0heh<93rga& bank vac * aoii»4«p9Blti&t headhoiaar &n& its salt was a 
elas« suit? Its «»en<le«L eoaplulnt set fortn thp bow^ ls€«u«, ths 
guarantjrf th« financial eoadltion of th# guaraat^rs, th» Bothcchlia 
tender aad. the «Kblgtiltl«» touching tha aethorlty of th» tru«t«« la 
th» trust A#*a and guaranty figr««»?a«nt. Plaintiff* say thl« wa« th* 
n>ault ef a '*fteer«t d#al"' and part @f a •ekea« th£,t the Sh^hoyiran bank 
voialS *ahout faoe. * An aasvar »m8 filed by tht first ^iitional Sank, 
as trastas, auJclni; for dlreetlon* of th« court. The ©thisr daf*ndaat» 
41^.110 anowarod, InoludlHtg the bondholders* oo£8»itt@«, reooBu^ndlnK ao* 
oaptaaoe of tha Eoth««hlld tender, 

iiittgutt 8, ISaS, a <amer^« was entsred finding that th^ 
iMiaaptatieo of this ti^nder w&s for th« h@et lnt#r««t of all the hond- 
holdere; thti.t thm trustee had authority to aooept it, c;mo@l th« 
tbeada offered and r«leaim the guarantors, and the deoree directed 
that this be done. 

Saptewber ?, 1®5S, th® original ooseplaint In the preeant 
«at« was filed by plaintiff* c'loeum and Sohn, ©siting' that the deore» 
of August Sth be «et aeld«« and aleo asking an aeeountlnf amA a eoney 
Judgment apilnet the guarantore and that the sale of the Harris 
Brother* 8 took be aet a«idtj thle eo«|sla.lnt, ©n motion, vae etrloken. 

Febmary 1, IQm, tht preeent amended eoiaplalnt wa« filed, 



to ^a«MNiaii«««H»« siU •mii* ;r«i0 aM^#l«Mrs ^nJUiqirao &«lia««« nil d»Xlt 
to ]?««%97fii «»4iif •4» nol mi ^ 91 b09%lL94 vM Aiu m0$mtrtBe% m^M t« 

ftii? •aaK>«^a«*i«u7( «Kt Of im»««Xon » e^voOK^o ifrflM •j&a<»fi( oii^ Xowwa «totl(i 

^gH «»y<ii»i JbfMtf 9ii$ lUiol #•« 7iaAX(iaM»0 AobAMUl «Ji ftiira mmIo 
>XJt«io«iel>a^ «ei» ,»^m»94«um»i oiatf 1» iro^iiiMioe iaXooMUt tutf ^%0aM^uir^ 

:i9 <*«¥r tlMi xa* «tti«rni*X'i ♦J> n o a*»i qM> Vn*****!! ^» ^•^ l9»*xd oiU 

v^.-«cf tsjA'^xwt^jAi' o.if tMf# ovoitet « t9 ^«q. IMuB *X««A #o%ftoo* « to ^Jbi«o« 

^»a I»n«lsr»i?i tmil% 9M vi *oXit oitv •kovooo cA ' ,04Mt ffio<^»* AXafOv 

AV>ne^oJ^ *itiAt« i*m .t^MfOO 3itt to OfiOilortiiS lOt 9MuU»o «oo9aii«r oa 

«oo Bitl&a««i«ooa% «Oftf«iiine« ' O't oftiotf tnotf me&T ^o^iiiMU ,Jbo««)roAA ooIji 

.•solifi?} Jbiitfa^dto.^ oiMT to ooiuaqoo 
a£i^ imOS %siibal% i>isi^u* ««« eonur^ « »«6^X .3 ^TMCiii^ 

j34»4 %m lim to $««'X»;;siX $S«Ul 9M tot OJMT nolkOOt 0149 to 0MMi><$*9OO 

ftotoo^ift »rxo«J& ^M ImM ,«tedr^onuMi o4t ooaoXo? Iuxm i^ovotto oAmiI 

• Mioft oil mU» tM0» 
#aoo»74i: 047 «1 901*1^00 JmOs^eo mO «dltX ^t %%*nm$fi^ 

OOVOftfe Ollt ««K» BfUJ^OO «8lto:j Mo mtOOXl OttiHAiAl^ ttf »OXXt ««W #900 

^ofiea A Alto Dnlvaaoooo no sa<U*« m^« An* «*itiao »9e o<f <£#d #«i^«A to 
sltvoH ad? to oXoi o^nr «4ilt ^oo B^($$iioacoN|| oKi »aaio«o tooflQ&iti 
.fl*)(ol«s*« »j»* ,«oi*o» ao ,taiAXq«»o aJUW i o»lo Att« od Jto«?« omoiWwifi 
k.^r*% •«« »nr«i«TMttA Aafco— w tfHooo«ia otft «4SeX .X VfOinMfot 



feSklBf thmt thB An^m^ ©f i!.Kgia«% i, 1®SS» be i«€l®j»«€ a«ll ®«a void., 

re»©T«d aad helS for mX£ms.«&r%&^. an4 ailt-f **#»»©* ead thiit s m^mty 
Judgment b* tater«4 against the sarfi^lag |:^ftraRt0re, S«f«sdAats 
filed B«tl«se te strike, which >s«>r® iMstsiH«d, thft trlnl C!Oii.i!>t ap-' 
pftr«atly tef^laig ef th« ©jjlslsii timt sll tl3i« ffi&tfe*rs mt mp la t&t 

prior t® tilt lfi«-'tltutl©n of th® pr«e«nfe |J3?©.S(6ediag», 

Plaiiatiff bieoum Ir th«s owner ef li'tOOO ot the fe^eis: 
plAlfitlff Ci^life ewae i*6©0 «f tag feeade, &ni, th«y ^IS net a.«|soslt t&tlr 
bond* with taae cosa;itt««; plalatiff Hart deposited his ^ad®, ag- 
gr«gatlag »Xg0O. PlAlntlft £!&€«» hM.& fcreu^t Kiit agfeiuet 
f^tb.8ciiil& f©r tim r»©a-pajraent of tii« Interest , and ©a ii«i!jj-t©asl»tr t?, 
XQ$7, had Ju4^«nt agal»»t Rothffehild f@r i6i4.X£, 'H&lteli iir#«( ^fflrsMid 
^ tfet AppeXl&te ©otArt In SloismBt v, H&rrls. fi96 111. App, S€t, «iid 
leavis to apF^fcl d®al®d tey th« 2«pr«BM> eoart. 

fl4i.lntlffs5 attaei: t&« «i)il« ^ t>ie trufitee of ths s&rrii 
Brothers atiH;fc pi®d€«d uaddr th9 trutt desd to th» b<in^hdld»r«* a««-. 
eltt«e for iBISOO; this etsek was sole «t public auction and th« py«« 
o««da appllad 9n aeoouat of or h«ld for outeitandlng hondi!. f:hi3 
anendfd coi^lalnt eon tains no allegations ae to the; actual v&Xu« «>f 
the stock or that the e«le prie« ime Xsae than tbe valm^ or that t^(^ 
trustee was without powar to tall, Maraovar, thl» tale was fally 
detorlbad In th« FadaraX ^»urt raorganlsatloa proe«adlngs mjk4. after 
ovldanee before a maatar and hearing hy tha oourt th« aala waa eon- 
flraed. All «(uaatlon« with rafarenca to tha aetloa ©f th« traste® In 
oonsaetlOR with tha Harrla Brothars Qos^any etoek wier® finally de«> 
teralnad In tfe« '^^v^ral oourt, and Its eonelunloa Is & fear to tha 
plaintiff e* elala, in thin raapaot. 

fha aiaanded oos^Xalnt ohmrgad frm%id In aeoaptln^ tha tandar 
of aethsehlld of |143»2iOO of boada and relaaelng tb@ guarantora. The 
guaranty agreanant provldaa t^tat upon payaant by amy guarantor ©f any 
ftSAunt purauant to tha guaranty agraemant ha baceima antltlad to a 



n^aS^^tuSL »9^(ii«>inmKti SAifivttt* «^t ^•Aliit* ^•^•tll* «4( ^JIMlfiVt 

%lii^d:i ili »»<;•& ta« ttlA xit3 httS ,(tJte«^ aii;$ %• MMN alMM iidsd lti<raiAX« 
«i« ttdMtf till A^titeqa* furil tU«ai«l« i«*ltiM»« Adf 491v »JMi«r 

,TS t«tfa«t4«« •« i^« ,f«»««#ni *^lt t* tCMitiMHIM -mm 19\ ikXi4MiCr«i 

AMTilttA (i«w MAijfr ,ax.MM^et &XlifiMiltt4 yvfllttftA ^flMmfrift kMd tTt«X 

ftm ,!!»e .(i«A .ill MS atit'mit .▼ ff— ♦Xt «i «^*e MraXXtitiqi^ ttdt iptf 

-e^q 9tit bat. aoUwik »tMmn •« AIM «jnr tf«»^» aitft ;0«Q$f «»t »«#:rid 

9i{t .tJte«tf $iii;gMUi»«»iio <cet ftX»tf t« %• tooMMa e» A^XXqwft •*••• 

10 »ul£ir X»»t«« «dtf «^ »j« «ftel»«||i»lXA o« iial(i#tt«« irikJUiX<|BN»» A^ChMNMI 

tt& tAdi tc wlmr %m MJft ataX t«w •»i7« »Xa« Mft i»iS» •&« <«ot« iiilt 

tXXwl ajtv »Xiui aXd? ,«»vo«n»M *XX#e «t <«««r«^ ^««^i:ir ftAw ••#8int 

aX «t9tinct ftilt t« «idX«d« «^ et Mst^*!*^ H^iv tJMi^s^iffi XXA .l^Mivlt 

-•A iXXMit «v«w <••»« t«4i«M& •'xt^nA •JbnM •tf j!f»X« aoI^aaiuiiM 

Mft «f "SAtf A aX UttXBjfXMad %$t ham tt%if9 X«^»ft«1 MV llX ftMil»t»l 

^««i 1ft <«»Ja*«jafiB t«» TBif y«««t*^ «©f w *«*» «»*lvoitv? tmmmvti^ t»«*«A»i 



1 

ll«n ©n %hm tjm®t »«tat« to tfe« «iet#st ©f »ueh p«.f»#ttt, iBfttt s^fe- 
opdln&te %Q tfe« ll«n ©f %h» te©nah©14l«r«, ftothschlld h&d &e<ittlr«A 
:vl4S,K'0 0f botfude ASid t9Bd«r«d th«si for e«.neftlaitl9ft in Qrd«r te r#«> 
dues the Kortf&gt lRd9)>t«dii*«t8 to IX, 000, 000. If this aff«r wns 
&ee«9t«d Eothechlld would beeone & 9r«>dltor of the sortgagt dtbtor, 
but t%iborMn&t« to the ol«i»8 of tl}« bondhold«r«. It v&» i^ll« the 
qu««tloii of tho o»thorlty of tho trufttec %& aeoopt this t#ndtr w«« 
p«iidlng In th« r«des*l eourt that the sfiheboygaa >>«tnk flltd lt« »ait 
&clLliig for a aonoy JudfBont &^«in«t th« gu&rsntore &na. for &n order 
•njolnlni: the truetoo froB aoeoptlag Hoth«eMld*s off«?r. The Isond- 
holders* ooratittoo fll«d Its potltlsn in th« rtd«rj»^l court seklng 
Its authority to Apr t<wp 1» tJ^« «ta,te oourt proe«9dlag &nd t® sjppo* 
to the e0»pr©3Bi»# off«r»d toy Sothnehlld. tble wssis r»f«rp«4 Is the 
Poderftl omirt to % sastor and «Tld«no« vras introduoed mn to th« 
flaattol&I condition of th« guftrantoiro* fho a&et«r fou»d that f'-&%is2«I 
Harrin, on# of th# guarontore, had died in WM and hift @ttat«s had 
boon Aottlad l9ofor«t thoro vat any default In %h» mortgage and«r oon«» 
sidoration; thus^t l>, C. Karrla, another guarantor, n»A dl«d in 193S, 
loaving no asmta ot3%er than in^urano^ payatol«t to hie family; that 
tha eo(»sitt#« va« usable to find any assete of A. Harris, another 
guarantor, and that if, K, Baum, anothar guarantor, had »iall assets 
and larg« li^ahilitiee; that th« only &tm of thsf^ guarantors ^%%h 
aaaott was ^thaohild, vfho had larfre lishilitiea, aM that UMit a- 
^Intt his itiould probably roault in bankruptcy. Blo ttaatar roportad, 
roooAisaadini; that tha eomiittao aooopt notheohild*« tandsr, and it 
w&« »o ord«r«d« fiMrt it no «Yidone«» of fraud or oenspiraoy, but 
thft ordor nwa onterod only aftar oaraful ooa«idtration. 

Flaintlffe naxt oompl&in that tho doeroo of th» ^mperior 
eotirt of August 3, V^ZB, i« no bar to tJ^i« action, ass that deorao 
was proeured bjr fraud and oolluaion. fh« Shoboygan bank** anandod 

ooKplaint was fil#d on behalf of &11 bondholdars and ae««rt«d t^t 
aftor an imroctisation of the f inajsoial oondition of th« fuarantort 



-4- 

^^t«« iffy to Kdtitvno M ^m—^^4 btn&n frIiffoftjd9«/t ft«/4[9««» 

««v? «t«&ir*# tfrf^ 9q*99a nt m^mtfxt tat t« t^ftoftlua «ri# Vl ii«irtMf# 
yiuft Mil i}«>m iA«tf ff«^tetftiff«> «£{# f»m fnoo9 I*r»H1f Ailf HI talte^q 

» i:? <?Jt iHi-n«l»t «*w^i. ..:„;.. -_. iJ ft«ir«tlo •<< x«^)it(piroo o _ 

'rT<»f) "nnSittu «s«s^08f ^i'^' ffi tX»•l»^ t0j| vjnr vtofft i^'frclMf ib«Xiy«a atMl 
dfsitB XIft%9 f«i!f ,'se#i!s«tAtfg ti»mwkm ^mtmS .A .IT t«ift feir* ttoritMiUfll 

ftrjhr »ii«/ift»vji»^ 9«»ifir lo «iie tXii«> «i& r«<fir {•♦itf imaIx «»^irtAX ars 

-« tf&ti ftrf* M» ^99ttttt4nti «ifi«X (^Mf ojfv ,AXjtrf'>»f«»».*i si«v »»«»a« 
«6«t^?9<)r isJNftir t^t ;«tJMr Hi tXtrtun tXtffttftfVf ftXirenr mI^ YftfflJkai 

<tel^«^8 flit inir ••«i9«4S «^;f JstfiT Al*Xf»e« tx«n ttl^l*ffX«iH 
ursatib tAd$ «« ,ji9Xyo« sXi» ol ifcrf •# »JS ,*»ft*?X ,» f«»»uA t«^ j^.t'i>s 
feirfSfs«» rtA^ltotf*^ 'Mft ,B©l«krXXe» fin* inwrrt ^ A^nijaeiq »«w 

ft-xe^oifxiiiill wft t« a«X#/Jbflet l*X»fi«ifXl Mff to noX;r«]|i»»«rtil ra ir*^tA 



<lter«« t«» 1feif »i>4 *(».« «nt6re«l la the l5u|*®rlor ©©nrt» Bottb«#hil,d«g 
bQnds v»re iMsc«pt«'S and tb« |):«R3»&ntore r«»l«s.9«d, Xt ®j??>«ars th«.t 
both Mart and ^^loous tm^v of th® pendancy 9f tla«8« pp©®««dlng»| 
neither, hoKr«v«r» »&d$ &iiy att«»pt tc ve.e&t« %h« d«erft«i or ftpp«ftl 
froffl Its Hiyrt, «« « d«s>oeitlni bori4U3old«r, wa« r«pr®t#iit«a by tkim 
Qoaalttpe. fh.« d«0jr»«e in the ?:»«,p«rlor c©art %?«« not a c-on«©nt 'Iftej^t 
tmt v&« eat«r«d after pl&lntlff had lnv9eitig«t«d thig eltuj^tlon, and 
tt|»OB th« hearing %hM d«a3r«e wa« entered, fh« S^ttpepior eeurt found 
in Its d«er«« ths^t tht cult »a« bi^ug^ht as a elase suit anS t!;mt all 
parties v«rt iHjpmeiientad, Plaintiff*, ai i^ have nald, n«lt4i«r 
9B0ir«<l to iraeatff or app«al, 

^ faete are shown •upportlng the eh@rK«« of fraud mnA 
eolluflon. It is too vlX eettlad to requlrs «xt«Ad«d Gltatldii of 
istuthorlty that isar« eenoluslona ae to fr&»d &ve not «ufflol«nt, taut 
that faott aust 1&« thovn, Harrlgaa v. County o f ig orla. B6S 111. 
36 J 8 nag 8 v. Chlca^zo Title k Trust Co .. 366 III, SaSi riatOi ▼. i:,; Laft|fc. 
303 111, £54. The ^Superior ootart 'bad juris diot Ion ©f th« Sh«boyg&n 
bank cult. All partief tr«r« in oourt anA w«r« r«pr«s«nt«d by »«»b«r« 
of tiM»lr raepaetlTa alacM* and by tb« tru»t««. , i!p^.ti a v. Kao<^ ,ii»»en. 
3«0 111. 2m. 

Hba l»8taat pr&c««dlng« ar« In tim natur* of a bill of 
roTiavtr, «Hliioh inu«t be brought for srror of lav aj^par^nt on the faoo 
of th* d9or«»9 aad cannot be made to funetlon a« an appeal or ^rlt 
of error, Hesfnisr ▼. ^oovey . 51S 111. 169. 

Plaintiff® argue that there vae no eaiblipilty la tH« terrat 
of the trufst deed with referenoe to the authority of the trustee to 
««o«pt the notheehlld bond* and that the aetlon of the trustee in 
thle regard iraa Istproper. ^au^lnatlon of the tra«>t deed («eo. 12, 
art, 5} flhowe the truetee vac authorised to aooept and reeelve in 
•atiefaotlon of the mortgage debt •such asiount and aetountt of soney 
at the truetee in Ite unliialted dl@eretloa say dees advleable. ** We 



•♦I.' 

1 idi 



tcftitit ttii^et lelftc 



t M« ilk 

fdi fli ft#iflttii9 tjsv 6n« tid* o* ««i»«Jb 

,»90« «n»w »5isotf 

rioa 9itO fata •rf^ »«l iii 



'A ««1'1 



«f net Mat's •^•«' tttlttif 



.1. AtAMrr ol &»▼•■ 

<S 10 I^OiJ^I.o■<.f^u;, i>%a ^M»•0 t' *" ' ^-^ .'-''■ . ' ''' 'Oft 

,51 ,0*8) ^^^^ f«^t«ff #rf» le BsitaniuuctiS ,t»«l««q*l tAw ttAurs airf# 



1 

-7- i 

In eoiapjromlsft of tM goftr&nty. -'^ eert«.i» affioant ©f dlfi«.r«tl©a w«,® 
lodged is '^m tru«»t«« 1^ th« t«r»s of th« truet A«Pd, tout there i» ao 
ell«g&tloii th&% ^1« dlfcrttion %m« act «s«r«le#d honestly ijiRd fair- 
ly. 

It Is fftld tfe« tr«*t»« p*naitt«« d«f salts la ife* |»»3r®«nt of 
tftjte«, feut tli©r» l» no all^gfttlea th»t the tru«»t«« eoald h&vt av©ld«A 
tiMse defaults or had any »©n»y t© awke »aoh p&ysseats. fSi»rR Is a© 
allegation that any sor© oould h»ve l»««n r«alla&a f«r tM feenffli®ld«r« 
If th® trustee had Inetltuttd for«cl©«ur« p3»oe»«?aings, fh« eosBsltte», 
representing 90 per cent of the outstanding bonds, v&s of th^ dplnloa 
that Aceelaratioa and foreclosure ^»re Inadvisable, fij« complaint 
do«8 not suggest tetat any greater benefits for the feoniSh«»lders oould 
h&r^ li»«»n bad than wai obtala«d tey th«a la th« ressrismlgatl^a m®- 
oo«pllafe»d. In th« P«dtpal court, 

lnda«triou» and astute odunsel for plaintiff « h&'vt pr«s#nt«d 
a large nusiber of points and eitatlonK it^liiek vould unrea«on&bly ex- 
tend tills opinion to eosnaeat upon, *It is Ju^t as Issportant ttea* 
there should he a plaee to end as that there should be & pi&ee to 
begin lltlg&tion, " t^^toll v, aottllefe . SOS U.'^. ISSr. 

We have presented the afflraative reasons ^^y, In our 
opinion* the orders of the Superior eourt susteinlnj!!; the ^otion<^ to 
etrike plaintiff #' anended eompl&int and di»«i«sing it »^ere pr^^r, 
and they are aff irauRd. 

kwfimm, . 

Matohett, P,J,» and 0* Connor, J,,eoneur. 



•Mod 9^»aoA 01 s»7«ju^s ^tt -^uUlt^^ftiA %XXaeitl»«^« •smt^iuJ ttfl baX\ 
lo lis4i^=v'- ^^'T fli tifXuAl*^ AAirUrxiKi ••^•intf till blmn ai #Z 

tiolai^o 9tiS 1c r ,Aj>iiocf ai^iAiujrsSjM •dl lo ««•« <«tq 09 9ait/B9«»v^*<i 

.fntvoo Xjrt«A«t Mat a! ft«cl«iXq^w« 
b9tti999^i.l •vAd allx^fliAic; 10^ X'MtwM t^tiB JkftA mtfoJhttauAaZ 

ifi «d«iq « «^ iitvo4» ^i9£it tMttt as JMi» of m»»la m ad dlnoilt ««xMit 
.asi ,.: .U «05 . djil/»tfo^ •^ Li. . .'ioi»«8i»lX lilB»^ 

TLio ni ,x^ aaoaaat «Yil«nLi1l1:« cmeU *•#«•• rsq •rati. e» 



of the ";tt«t«,arf Ml^&el v^. l*eTHi!J^s'^«y, j 



&«e@£E«4» 






4ppe|lsint, 








wiehtutl MoIii«m»y, vhlle driving hl« ror<l ear w««tw*rd la 
Ceraak roitd In Chlosgo, collided with & truck going ««iitw«rd b«l©ng- 
lai; to A9ten&&nt baiting- oompanjr and driven by the ao*S«f«ndimt, 
Zdtfln S. Kellogg; a« « rveult of the oolllslon Welnerney r«e«lve4 
Injuries from wtoleh h© died; hl« fttolnietratrl^; l&roufht eult agalnet 
the owner of the truek and Its driver, alleging th&t HaXoerney was 
exerolslmi^ due eare but that defeivdantfi* truek w&e so earelessly and 
negligent! jr operated by Kellogg as to eauae the oollialon; the eaee 
wae tried lay oourt sm& Jury and a verdlet wa« returned finding d»- 
fendant« not guilty; aiotlon for « new trial wae overruled and Ju«%- 
■tat entered on ttm verdlet. rlalntlff appeals, 

Plaintiff firet aseerte that the verdict wst a^alnint the 
Butnlfeit weight of the evidence. The accident happea«d about 
3 o*eloek on the aornlnf; of Joly 14, 19,T?; with Meinemey In hla oar 
were Arthur Roes, %ndrew Kruby, Jr., «uid Joeeph Je»ke, all esployeee 
of the Link iselt Coapaay; on the ©venlnf of July 13, th«y had at- 
tended a neetlng^ of the offieere and eaployeee of this eoapany at 
33rd and Haleted etreeta; after the weetlnj?, ^elfmr-my vlth hie 
party flret i»ent to a dovntotm restaurant on Van iuren etreet near 
Kt»to, where they had eoatethlng to eat; they left thla place at 
about ? o'eleok on the momlni? of the I4th and proceeded hoaeward. 
They drove south on state stres't and were stopped by a red ll^ht at 
Cewsak road, or ^ad street; vhen the green light ease on they 
turned vest on Qeraiak and had gone about a bloclc - that 1«, opp>o«ltc 



»^A0# 









y 



08*' .A.I GOb' 



i.-j 



a'}'^ 



,raiBJMi»t«l»->o» iNff 'tft amvtnb bna i|iuk;pw« yiiii/ >ii oar i«i 

h«irl«e»n x;M)'Y^n^o^ aelMtlXon mAt !• 9/JMiWi « •• x^fHiillmH .is ninftZ 

a«w X9on%al&' iadS ^i/al^^ila^ ^i.vtl'ih mti hum itntnt futt lo umavo ^utf 

t;»© »ltf «l i:'9MTT«r.l»?-J i^tW ff99S ,i^J i£X»^ le ^tm»» Mf! no aC»«)Xo*0 IS 

-9.6 bAA %ml9 ,ex twCtfl* lo i^fl«v» Mf^ no ;tiuipm') 'J^*^ ^^••^ •'■^ ^<' 

9* X£r»qM<»9 9lsi9 to ••«t«Xqp« l>a« ••x»9Xtlo mi9 le )Mii'M« « JI^*Aji«r 

aiil il^lv ^•fln«al«!<! t^i'MMt «ftt nuilM ]«#«m4»« i)«f«Jjiyi Aim M68 

tArna fvttn a^ntM a»v no iiuntt*ttnn mroYnwoA « ot favw t»%t\ xtnuiq 

ta oocXa aiH? t\^^X x»ii9 U«« o# aaliltMMMi Ajftif l*itf rt»<fcr ,ft^«jrR 

.Mawmo^ J^A&AixtO'vq ba» tlt^t »Hi lo ;eMiXira«ai •^ no JooXtt'o 6 tfsoda 

tM tastli bm a x^ b^qoitt •mow bttA fsm* «r«}t> no dtyo9 •rooA y*(<¥ 

».- .sl ^Ai(9 - atttoXcT « »iM>«r4 Mos Amu! bn MMn»9 «• 9«tw 6Mnjit 



.g- 

B^&rteora §%r«f»i, *diieh Twm aorth ana sossth, uh*8. t^ oolll»l©n 
with dftfendftntir* traete,, arlv«R hy 'jiellog-g, oesur3*«d» G^raafe read «t 
this point znin« ««,et ftQd w«6t and is ilightly over d§ fe«t 1» wisith! 
th«are Are two i!tre«t ear trft«k« on Cmrmmkt both 3f wtileh fi.t thm tiae 
of ta^M Aoeltent «r«r« ea t}» north «tLde of C#rsak inst«64 of the 
oonter. 

Plaintiff aak$« th« point tluit as def^nOante' autoatoMlo 
vat proeeedlng •aetv^aT^ Ifi tim «ast iMMi&d oar tr&^e« «^loh w9T9 on 
th« north 8ld« of <i%rmtM,p it violatod p».r»^nkpiin ISl linS 1S£ of Vaat 
Motor Vohiele law, ehap, 98-1/2, 111. S^v, i^tats. 193?, which lit 
effoet say* that vahlolee shall b« driven on tim rig^t slAt of t>t« 
read, vith certain sxeoptlene, one of whleh is w^n the right half 
of th« roadway 1« olo««d to traffic while tin4«r eon^truetlon or rt* 
pair« fhat wa« tho eaae bar«. ^^ railroad vla^uot ero«s«d Oonsak 
a^ut a block and a half west of tho plaoo of th« eollielon. fho 
paYOBsont on th« eoiath «!<!« of <2«r»ak: roaiS ijKi&e&iatoly sant of th« 
viaduet had boon toani up, loaving th« two pav«d |^rtlon» of tho 
fttroot oar track* on th« north oidft of th« road th« only spaeo for 
traffio, and eact hound traffic \isft<% th« str«et; ear traek*. liM^ffna- 
ants* truck was on the north tldo of c«r«ak x>oad, not in violation 
of any provision of th« Motor Vohielc la%r hut hooaase traffic on the 
eottth «i(3« wap ohftruetcd by pilinicc And tr»8«ole waet of th« 
▼iaduet and the torn up condition of the etraet «a«t for a short 
hloek up to th« ttroot ear tracks, nd^leh, ant m» hav« «ald, wer« on 
th« north ald» of Ceraak road noxt to tho north ourb. Mor«ov«r, 
eottneol for plaintiff ooncodcc that oaet hound traffle might proceed 
on tho «a«t bound oar tracks. ^'eln«m«y*« ear ^ab pvpoceeding v«et«> 
vard, straddling th« north rail of th« west bouna street e&r track, 
while defendants* nutoisoblle truck was going easterly in tho east 
hound ctroet ear tracks. 

Plaintiff's faeory is th«t ®« th© v«hloles approached each 
ether defendant >>ellogg suddenly and neglig«ntly turned hie truck 
In a nortJifflastffrly direction, brlngii^: it aero«s the path of 
McXnerney** ear, causing the vehicles to collide despite Mclnerney's 



l&thtm fli «#*t et i«To xltii^M tti f»4U f ••« i>a« iM9 4uun f nioq tiitf 
•lU to tM9t%tlt iMmfO to •Ala 2l»10ll Mtf «o t^«y ^•JblftM Mtf t* 

AG t^fx ilfrirtv ^tiX4«'x# nAt hhu^ »•«• vi^i fli MMttse »ii/A»o»»i9 "«« 

•iir 1» 3«I &AA XeX t^^Mill'IA^ l>^4»l«lv «1 tiUmwufi t« Afria liTtMi Mit 

nJt rfaWw ,T5«J: .tt«tft .▼•« .Ill ,SV-«« .«<"«• •«»-f •X»Xit»t «tptell 

»ffi to «fti« ftfsli it^i fie ttWvHh trf ir«/ft ^•l9idvf imifi ti«a fotn* 

3tAi3n»0 bMftona i9tihMtr hMtntUn A «n«i ••«• Mf t«« tAdT .iJ«| 

»rfr .aoltf JtXe9 »i« to ooAXOi •«» to »*oir tX«<f o ftiw *>oXd a Jwotfo 

•li^ to fn* xtBtAthmmml boon ](«»to!> 1« «Bia iftiroa «!} no ^aooorsq 

9£9 to •nolJioq ftovwi ow* •«# snitooX ,qi» irtfti aootf tMd futMiw 

lOt oDoqi tXfto tit ftoot •!£» to oblo Oitoa odf flo tHoOTf too lonti 

-^^•t•9 .oKoait iss »«o«i»t oiff 6o««r oitt«rt» Aftvfttf #t»o bos «oltt«it 

AOl9AXelT Al fon ,f>son iAanoD to obit rfTitOA Oflt AO k«w jfdiPKt *oiii 

:*fii rt« Oltt«* ••IIA0i<f Jlltf vol OXOiXlftV lOfoK 0C(» to flOi»lVO«| tAA !• 

•iJ* to ts<»v al0«s«iit inA •1|aIII<7 t<* fto#o*n*t«f<» taw •*!• ^MA 

Jtoifa A lot *«*» ;r«»^lft oiW td aeiflftnoo qu tnt^t o*» Aaa tfojrftAiv 

no *n9¥ »*!*« «varf »w •« ,iloXilMr «AiOA^^ •»» J»rx*» MSa o* qu iooXd 

,'£«v©*50?» .fifiao iflneA oiil o* JKO/it ftao-x ilAfintoO %• ilk^iA tffnon oitl 

feoaoonq ?£tal« olttAnf &«ir«tf fOAO iaitf •»&»©«©« ttl*fll«X<| tot Xooaaoo 

-^ft»tf i|fiiAftOoon<i tA^ tad • * tMt<sA£tIoM .tlOA^f %ao ftAwotf tooo tii no 

«:2ojrsl -xao *#oi*» 6«aod fto^ #rf» to Xl*i rffaon orft saiXfrfta^fB ,M«¥ 

-ftao *^/ Ai t^i»;rtao «iUOtl saw Koin? oXitfoaotoa *atAaA«»toi> •lUtii 

,9}t»»t3 lAO foo^s httUQdl 

d9m^ b^AaMotqqM •ololdtr »i!S> •• tBtii •! tKe»«rt A»ttlttfX«Xn 

Moint* old ftoAt«» tXi^B*SiXs«« *«* %in%&hm SM^^*^ tAA&«otoft nori*o 
to *»Aq eiC* ««»voa il isiAlsflXtd ,«ol*»oflft tX-xotAAOrtfnoA a at 

. ..r».r^M t,**»m^K ^tkirtt^r, At tff'^fMnir ciwi^ -Atii%tiB.Q .<Tjia •'vaHioflloM 



efforts t© avoid «a aeel&ffRt. 

ij««3t« t«9tl-fl«d %hM% hn wms oa tl^ft ©is«Si:- #s.«t of th». e®r dra 
the l«ft h&nA sl<i« behla4 ?-elRern«y; h* e*,ys a^feadajits* truck 
8i*ir»ed to the left, euttlat' rli^tet la fitntit &t Mettt©rs«r*8 8iup| that 
Keln«ni«y alto et^rre^ to hl« Ifrft an<a t!i«n the seelHont oeeurr^d; 
li« BAjre Meln9]*n«y*« 8«r w&n feini; not a»»re thstm E^ islles as li^ur and 
tliftt 4ef«ndAnt«' tsHiok S'^rv^d In Ite pathway kIsjsii It i»«« to«tw««a 
88 dr 30 f«et away? th«,t Seln«me>' ewtpved t® tks rlgiit. wbtn *l«»jfe« 
testified before th« ©oroaer's liis?ai3py iat© Hetn^metf* u Stftth a f«%? 
w««k« aft«r the oolll»l©n h« ««14 tm edulc? not t»13, hoiw fer apart 
tht ®ar« *«r« when def»»4.satR* car started to «w«r?®} th&t jstll h# 
eav w«re the light* In front of fela ai»«l ke «ia sot «©« tte truck 
ttatll tka aM»s«nt of tli« lo^^et; that hM eouldi. not tagr s.s to 'ii^hett 
dlr«etl«»n *^cln«m«y swung his autoaobile. 

Hd«« t«»tlfle^. be was elttioi^ o» th® ^tek seat of 
t>leXn«ri»«y*i ear oa tht rlglbt hand «l&e and th« ^alF t^litg h» e«mld 
raaaalwr vaa that h« «aw llgStta In front of th«m at an angle, '^iah 
appaarad to b« Ilg:hte of an autowobllit aot over 10 or 13 fact away 
idtaa ha aav than; thst h« %&» x^ot paying any particular attention to 
MeXnarfiay't drlvlnf, 

Hxnihy taatifled he va» on th« front ©eat, to the right of 
Kolnarnayj taaat is»hea h« first «av th« track It vs« on the vast botstnA 
rail, eloaa t© the ^elnarney ear? timt the truck i«Ad«nly nm4m a 
short eurv#, turning t© the north. At the ooroater'e Inqaeftt ha 
taatlflaa Im dlsi not ««« th« trmok or Itg lights htforo tha eol- 
Xlaloa. 

John %lvor» ohautfaur, an Indepandaat wltnoaa mUm was 

otaadLng' at the northeast comer of f-^tate street and 0«rma]&' road &t 

the time of ^le aoeldent aald :hft notloed the For€ la 1^ west bound 
tracks and the truoi: cosing In the eaet hountS txtssoks; thi».t he heard 
the soreeohins of ^raJtes! that after the collision the ford ime up 
agalnet the rl^ht hand aide of the true^, whleh was faalog lo & 
aoutherly dlreetloii. 



t^mt *«tA«IMi«'W* rtM «<i ticMnc«aX»^ i>»UL94 v*!* teoif ^1«X M(l 
;5«»r>»»ft« ^a«bl#*i wtt M*tti ham ll»i ftiiC o« hvrtmm ••U xwt%ml9» 

«J»«W «ttd« Aii^i^ tin •# i^frcvM tMnMUM l«ift ri««4i #••! 0» no M 

«i iJLft ««& t»v<i#«« cjT fttt^A^t tM *s#a«**«l0* «*tf« n«« rx«« iift 
4«j^l %m ••« toa ftt& •!( hM mm 1« ^iMrflt flJt tft^^tt •til M*v icm 
;}4<i»^ «(r •« lAa $<M MUtom mi 9m4i i«ft«f«i wit lo «n«M« mU li^M 

19 l«4a :«o«f 4;!/ A* talttU a«tf ad &aitita«r a»«s 

dQiiim i9iwi» M »A «a<f« \a tflovl ni atitBil «aa «d iatft aaw « n<« iaa t 

^«t#A {fMt ax TO OX ntaFTa »•« aXltf Miami mm ^ atrfill ad of ^a«M««« 

C3 iiftifix*itji tAXvairxa^ IM a«ll«f tea •«» •«« faii* l«ai» wsa •< «aAi 

i& tH&tt ^Oi o$ ,t««a tiHn\ •itt 00 aow ad AaXll^aat 't^aiX 

Stait«ts ta«v Mitr sa aa* tX Mttn^ Mft wm #anXt ad ««d« fatf» it««iiaaX4iM 

a afras YXaa^ftiw aCa»«t arff »*ia s-taa ta»ia«i*i ad» «t aa«X» ^Um 

wf »«a00iii ••tafi««oa 909 t^ UtP—m adt of w^imM ^9nm9 n«dl 

-Xoa arf* «5^al«d aWlXX a^l ii« ««irs» mIM — iwx hkh mi ^•iUi9*i 

•aaiaXX 

9«H efhr 9aa/tfl« »iiaft«a«t«Adi fl« i*xvat)if0do «i0vX0fi flffa^ 

jia Aa<w dmsttft^ Asm taavve «tat« 10 ti«00 taMuIfMii adt ** t«XJ>ft«ta 

boamt fw mU at iHal adf l^aeltoa 0d i»iAa ta*hl09^ •di %a mtiS adt 

ftraad ad t adt taiaa^t biwotf taaa adt ai laXataa d»irtt arft ftM adaamt 

tSP a«» *i«it aiit aoXalXXaa adt «0tla t«di saalintf !• vMidaaaraa adt 

j» 01 .»itio«) aAw ilaXrfw ,jC0i«t art* to aftXa tuukd 9tl%i% •Mi taffi^i* 

.naXtaavX* tXvaf(t«»98 



JsdMfi <l)*l»e«jr3r, snotliftr ehaaff^ur &tni ln^p«nd«iit -^ttnw^n, 
««» tftllcliig to H&lvor at tSm time; h© sal€ hfs hsaM tbe 'fey^fesii 
eef«««M,ag' and enw tls« tv© c«ri ©ok® togetlmrj th«.t wJiea he fir«t 
«ft« tb« t«*o v«hielee it look«€ to hi® ae th©tt^ *th®y vfer« going 
\<^r« tivnf bftloiiigtd, ©ims was gelafs; e&et sii»4 ©a# was going v%n% in thm 
ear traokt. TM truelc ^as g®*-?^ eaet, 8 tr«€iai Inf • th« ©ast bound 
car tr&ol;,*. * ¥h«B C5*L«ar3r r«ft©li«d tli«>. eeene ©f the soeiaent tto© 
FojNI waa on tht rlgisit ei4« of tfe« tracit, *ns8«d int© the si^ of %h» 
«lddl« of tto« traolc • tevardu %h» front,** Meltiier ©f tii«st» »lta«s««s 
SM&v d9f0n<iKiit8* tmelt «wBpve t<jv«pfl« the north, ner ^i^ t&.«y aaa.«3>« 
t&ke to Rtat^ what e&UMd thi^ eollliiloik. 

Clmrlts ^oyln t«0tiflftd im v&s & p«XlQ« offief^r Aeeigned 
to th9 ftoeldftnt pr«r(»ntlon l}ur«&a; that hm took plotur^s as soon as 
th«- Injured parties %'«re reK©T»d froa the fordj tMt tli«»e shffiw tfeat 
after the eollieion the re«r of the tmck w«« entirely on the nortiJ 
eld* of the veet bound traok; thAt t^e gener&l dlr«etlon a»f tb@ 
truek vai &lato«t eaet end « little eout}ii that there wae oonslteraMe 
AflHsage to th« right front fender and Mheel of the truok} th».t moet 
of the Sa»ftge to the Ford ^rnM to Ite right front ei^«, 

Bfoee the reoord show olear anA oonvlnolng evldtonoe as to 
hotf the aeeldent happened? The wltne«nee for plaintiff are In- 
definite. Jeeke eaye that tjefore the aeeidient Melnemey'e oar n«at 
ewervlng to the left, hut on oroee-exaaiinatlen said it itiw^rved to 
tlM ri«^t{ that he had a *di«tlnet reeolleotlon** of it srvervlng to 
the ri^ht. Hrahy ««|r« defeadaatc* truek hit tlie foM ear '*eide'waye'* 
en the right hand elde. Halvor ea/t that after the oolllelon the 
truek vae feeing in a eoutherly dlreetion. O'Leary eaye the Ford 
wae on the rli^t elde of the trtiok *noeed into the elde** about the 
middle toward* the front, Polloe offloer Boyle took pleture* of the 
aatonoblles after the eoIXlslon and eaye these 9hJ0t^ that the rear 
of the tmek w«» entirely ©a the north side of the ^-ett hound traok 
and Ite general dlreetion was aXmo«t e&et and a little south. 

Under such eonfusing oiroametanees the Jury oould only 
i^eettlate as to the eamee of th« ooXli«lon, they oould J|u«t as 



9iral) mi tftl'rf tAfl9 ti4M£r«t*t MtM ftrcM «hr# 91(9 vM MM yiifi:»»M«>a 
^e*«»S ♦^•w t»^* ri*«i«rfir t« miff o9 »«:«*oX 91 w^UUt <wt Mft vm 

«.ii!;r r^i Jiwr ^t<»^ isrw •«« frn/l #•«» 1lfll*9 •**' •*»• »l^«>19licil«rf X^''* ««!» 

«fi9 9fi«ftloM sfff *to •f(i9« »i» ^MfMtn tTA<»J*o ii«K<w •.«ar»*it# "Me 

«rt* to •All* •sti «9«i ft«««ji* ««Mn(9 ti!» to •ft^t 9rf»H •!» no •*» M«"l 
•«ft«»ir9Jt« »••!» 1« i9Sttl»ft • .fmwt •!» tM«w»9-]IfttfVf «£» td ♦XftWii 
-^•ftmr %w*9 %th ton ,rf»nG« •jf» •M«'»«»t wmtnnt ^9uir9 •»9ftjiA«»1»ft ««• 

»js free* ta •♦rtirftlci «ee9 »j1 t*rft Tn«rti«f n*l9««T«n<T iftoftlotft Bfia dJ 

9jbi(9 «•({• M«f(9 94(19 ;Mo^ offr aenl b«T««*t •%«« t«i9'n'7 fr«*ivtn^ «>V 

if9?«ii •iflT 11^ tlrtl9«» 9M t9»nt «» te ^#n «99 fleJNiIX«» 9rf9 a»9lA 

9d* \9 tnt9o9^th X««fl*s tdt 9jtff» U«jw9 Mnratf t««ii •({9 te ^1» 

aXtfirt*fti»BOi> »«v rt»rf9 9aiJ9 \tttVKMt nOrfiJ li Mn 9««# 9«d«X» t«r tfeirt9 

9«o«i 9«f^ xHtmt *riif Ite X#»fb ftft« •»6»#t J«ot1r 9«i»li »rf9 of wfitumh 

,9bl9 ttfr^ 9if!|in §91 o9 tJMr Mo'^ •xJ9 #9 •9Mft» •i«9 1© 

-Hi «^* ttl9«i»X^ Tot t«ni»ff91w »t«T t&«««<rr«rf 9»»*1»»« o^ i»«4 

CAtf t*« ii*\«ri«iitr»M 9i»*ftXe»« «» flH«o^«d 9«rf9 »t»t e***^ .«9Jelt*fe 

09 fe«n«w« 91 W** R9l9«iTlBn»x»-ii«0Y» »o 9i»tf ,9t»X «<9 •9 3«iTiiw« 

•9 %litT^*w9 at to *Hel9»«XXoo»^ 900Jt9ilft* • hsd orf 9«rf9 tfll»i« 01^ 

%%&\r9tU* tan Mo«i i»rf9 91if «oj«9 »*fB«6i)r»toi »t»« TtfwH .9(I%M 0*9 

•lit aeialXIoo 01(9 •s(i9l« 9Aft9 axA* 'xotXaH .oftia htuUi 9itsi*r 0119 «• 

6««t «I9 «t«^ t^oJ*^ ,0Ol99O%X& tXt«if»M» • 111 litfo«t t«ir 4«in9 

•if9 9»«tf« *oJMi •If* eJifi fcotoii* JtoJ«9 «» to oftia tttgln «df no •*» 

f«(f to %maftii twa tiXx©* looltto oolXo^ ,9noirt «iI9 •ft«»T09 »Xftftl» 

^tmm Oi«9 9arf9 woria •»•!» atiw *«* ffOialXXoo «(9 i»?t8 •»Xl<fc»»o9ff« 

^»t9 fcfdWtf 9*tv oiS9 to «*!« «i»'S0li ©i^ tto tXvxl9n» »a« i9tn9 «19 to 

.rtJ«?4» «X9f IX ft !»«« 9000 9»«»X» tJnr «oX9ootil» XiiitMr«3i 091 B«« 

tXfl© feXooo T«tfl ori* •«9a«98«if»iil» ]|Bi»tftaoo liioo ^roftiTV 



~^ km. • r 



r^A ^<M> %<ii Am— mm mA* mdt a* mMmt ui k mmm 



have b«f«a a® eolllelon ap to eoaelude that this sv^rvleg of tfee truek 
eaufied ^© collision. It li n©t wll^ia th<? pr©vlfte« ©I" the juri^ to 
g««0» wb«J^ the truth 11#b aad »«.fe# that th« fouadatioa of a veMlet. 
^^ ^ffutt V. Colnatola n 'xpoel tlon . 178 111. 4?a» th«« oplnloa nstea 
that there ar« oncee *i*^tr« there stay b« g03?e evidence t«ndiag la 
»<»a« r^motm d«gr9e t© auppert ®v*ry ftll<»fatl©a, y«t of t©« Inoaa- 
cluelv© and unsufestamtlal a oh«raet«r to b« the found&tloa of a 
verdict.'* In nrglnia & a. w. .F^ .^.q^. v. H**!^, 16G fed, 348, SSg,lt 
was h«ia that a eaiw •heuld naver b« l*^ft to & .Jury on a t«®3tlsn of 
probabilities with a dlractlon ta find la &ocordano«» wlt^ tli« greater 
probability. *t© allow a Jury to dlspot* of a eae« sla^sly upon a 
weighing of probabilities It to tarn th«« loose lat© th« fl«ia ef 

oonjeotura* and to bava tea rli^te of the parties d«t«rmla«4 by 
guess. '■•■ 1ft liyty ▼. City of Jaaasvllle . 101 i^ls. 3?1, tH© principle 
of law If proiMsrly stated, *In a ease like thisj it Is Ineuiabent 
v^tem the plaintiff to sbov by evidence, wltte raaeonable dlfitli^tnefls, 
how and ^diy t^« aeoldent oeourred, ^** fo present two or more «tat»i 
of a eaae upon >7hleh a jury aay theorise ae to the real esattfi*? of the 
aeeldent, putting one oonjeoture agalaet another imd det&ralnlag 
idiloh l« t^e aore reasonable, oones far short of saklng a case. » * * 
An examination of the nuseroue autborltlee cited will dleolose that 
the principle of law doee not admit of (^eetlon or exeeptlom, tliat 
where there le no direct evidence of how an accident ooourred,* * * 
It Is net i^lthln the proper province of a jury to guess -^hers the 
lunith lite and raake that the foundation for a verdict. '' ^^e are of 
the opinion that In the Inetant caee, la the abeenee of any eo»- 
vlnelt^ evl&enee a» to whether ^elloiff, driving defemlante' truck, 
or Mainerney, driving I'd* own autoaoblle, or both ceablaed, broui^ht 
about the accident, there can only b« eur«i»e, Courte do not laulct 
litlgante In daaac«'<> baeed upon guesa worlt. 

Xt le said that counael for defendants wae guilty sf ale- 
conduct, with epeclal reference to hie argument to the Jury, Hpon 
the trial defendants* oouneel had offered to place on the itaad de- 



.}Oi:B«i«^ ft to tttyitBbnu^t Mft >«rff AiDitt *fVA t«ii: rf#irsf Mft ri«dsr •«•«! 

e»to« ii«:«l^d *if* ,ft* ♦in 9ft rc'» ff»i tf»g|»0 .▼ »»ulta nl 

fli 10l^*# «»f»«6l<r« MMKI M tAM 9'^4^itff ivltiKw'^ «*t«» 9rf MCtfiT CfAlft 

19 ii9lft^a9 m •• TK*t * •# 't«/ vtf ^rr«n AiMfft ••«• A flHir JklM tm 

i*;rA*'S3 «iir itri># ^AitAMoooA at fruit »f fivftenlii a itttiK a«iriixtf«tf««| 

« 0«i|0 ^l^i« MA* « to •••q:ai» of t^ifl A tf«il« •f* .t'lIltfAtfm<I 

1* blBn *ii9 ^tnt **»«X iMif iratff <if ■! «*it£ritfiitf««^ t« :|eil^i«ir 

ttt9^&B9ai «| tl *il<» •ill MM « Hi" «»•»«»• ti4*f««<C ••< V«^ ^^ 

,stt«i»#M(i»*li!> »Xtf«a*«aM at In .AMr^ftlt* itf w«Ml» At YttfaUIq «iO ff«4||i 

»«|A#« •^M f awr y«M*Yq *7 *^ .fi*inir»*o tiraAl*** Adt ti<» ^« «•< 

«itf te ««tf«3 X«#v «.<{« at •* fttl«f*«Kf tA« Tt»t * itslx^r atupf M«* « t# 

g«ii9iira9»«& bm 'v»<(fM« t*iiiJ»M «ncrfMt«»* •*>« %attftn ^Sn^bfrn 

• *• « .MA* a ?|«1«M 1« f^«;a ^t R*«0* ,*Xtf«««***1l 9t«« Adt 9i AsllW 

}fijrt M*X8*X6 XXlw »«fl8 «9ltl«i«iffu« ft******!! mGI t« selfaiilttAat* iM 

tiuii (ji*l»q9ft¥« It* »*l^toaf It* flat** #•* •*«& ml t« *X«rl««l'x^ iitff 

• * •«»*^'i99** tNtftf*** m vM to —tfhif f**«ifi an •! *«*il» a^tifir 

wff **t*rfw vaftirf ©f tt»t J» t* •onl'T©^^ la^OTtti •At mttS$tv $^ Ml ti 

1e mm ^ ** .f ol6^#v « ^ot it*X9*ftmmT «tt t*tft *]C*« Iktm •4il mm^ 

->if«9 %fi» t* »*J8«»tfji •(« «i ,M«* tfi«»Bal Aift aX faiAt noltttqp wt» 

,M«irc# •i»tffl«ft«*l»ft ^IvHft i9t»^II*a nita$*dw of fta •*a*ftlir* Bttieiilv 

:<iir,m»i«[ ,»Mi4fm«» iitod la ,aXltfa«ofa« awo aid i|«ivi«^ tt*^^*"^^ "«• 

roXi« 79M &t »#t«w0 .»9l«iiya »tf %£»• «a* airarif ,fiMftl*aa a4i 9m4m 

,t'%o^ avairg nafTii t^aaatf aayaauift m tfnaalllX 
>aX« t* x^Xlim aa« •tiuUMi^ta* iiat XMntf** fadv JblA* at 91 
fie^li ,Tiui «m e^ t«ea*i«iA ain at »MMa%*« XAl»*<r* Htlv ,7*aiftitoa 



•0-* 

fend«,at S?:#I1©.^, Srlrer of th« trueki ssaag«l f©r pXaintiff abj«ete4 
to Ills eaapffteney, vhleih objection tb^ etmrt pwj^Msrly euwtalaie^. 
Ch«p, SI, !?!» Ill, .%v, stats, 1937, In ;^ete&aapoa v, J;^j^, 55®8 111. 
Apf>. SS, vm n&t#d that this »a« soiaetliwfi ©&ll«d tte» "i^M Mim's 
Stfttttte" a«d th«t wigfflor« oa yld«fnce (Sftd ed.),|578, p. 1006, h&d #*ia 
tfol» ral« of laeosj^t^noy r«0t« on ''boim T&gut mttftf^or In plAo* of «. 
reaeon* wad asks. Can It ^ mom inportaat t@ isav«t d«ad m»m*» estates 
"than to save living »«n*c attat^t frim los« y^ Isjsk of pir^eft* 

la his argunaat to tha Jury eounisel t^r d^fandants .r«f©rr«<t 
to ®i« AftfandantR" Inability to pr®saat to th« Jai-y Sallogg-'is testi- 
mony ae to hov ttia aeelSaist hai^penadi that he had tenderad hla as a 
wit»««fii but plaintiff** eettnsel had otojnotad a« Ba was mot eoaipatantt 
«ltl:^ugfo plaintiff Bii|;ht l^ave waivad thiig obj<»etion anS p@r%itt«d 
tSas Jury to hava full information a« t© tha oeeurrence, th© oa»«t 
oited by i^laintiff in whiah t&a eonduot of oppotinf eoun««l wan 
erltioirad do not pratant a tituation liit« tMi8» and we "kn^^ of no 
rulf which holdt t^t it la r«T«rslble arror for 80une«l to rafar 
to th« faot that hit op^aaat hae \tf objeetions, although properly 
suistainad by the trial court, pravantad tha Jury froe knowing all 
of tha facts. 

It in augfaatad tl^t a eartain instruetlon givan at tha 
ra^uast of dafendaRts' eoun«al ahould not have 1s»««n givan. tha in*- 
etruetlon properly told the Jury thet ona of l^e vmth&As of i»- 
peaohin^ & witnass was to ehov that ha had iataationally »ada a stata* 
mant ^rior to the trial itieonsietant with his taatissony upon the 
trial >?ith ree^aot to a aatarial natter. 

It it axlooatia that the reviewing oourt ihould only 
p>ant a n«ir trial, %.'han the verdiet is attaaisad, «han it !# a|cain«t 
tiw s&anifaet waifjit of the aYidenae, All ^uaatione of faet were 
properly (rutagittad to the Jury, who aaw the vitneseee and heard 
thOK testify, Ite oonoluelon waa that plaintiff had failed to 
prove the allegatlane of laie eonplaint by a preponderance of the 
evidenee. W« do not see ho«r it can be said thie eonolueion is 
against the manlfefft weight of the evidenee. 



.LCI 9m »•!— S .▼ iMHtfii '"I •^^^^ .n#ftt« .vtA .XXX «8l «X8 .^lUM 
« to •oaiq fli iMifVitMi Mmav ••«§* ih« sttrc fir»^e<« M «l to •!»« tlM 
A*rx»t*% »#«jiX««t«l> irol X!i»iuwfi %tvi •At 9$ fMmnwM aX^ ill 

••«tX«T«q ARA ««X^)»»ttfo cX^t ^99l»m 9WA »iffti« tUt«i«X« «l»MiCfii 

• MA9 tdT .Mii«fx«»»9 «<# of M ji«X«Mnel«X XUrt 9wM 9$ rut% «# 

•jiv IdwivAo iytl9«q<;e le l«tt»«i«o •d^ ftelilv aX ttXtaX«Xq xtf *•#!• 

on y wMjr •« Nis tiXKf •«il mxtaotli « 9om««<i f«a •* b«tXoXtX«« 

t»l»Y •! X»»ii**» wt t«t:Tr« •X<fX«%*v»« tX tX #Mff tftX«i( rfaXjfv «i«i« 

lU lAXwbntf Mit rut <mU AttMVVIII «#w»t XAX«t «it itf iMAXAtaM 

,tto«t afiy t« 

*Rt Mif .KinrXs ii*«tf •▼«(! ««« iliiMte Xmmm *atffi«te«t»A t« t«o»p«4 

-ml to tft«i(f •• adi te alio faiCf TK»t «» AJTM tXlia«t«it(| naXtaiFifa 

.v^4»> : ^ ai^aiB YXXAnaXttfatiil %»A itA 9»M$ w»4a o» aM tavntXv * ^XHtMt 

•isi no40 tAMiX^aat aXif rfJXw »a«faJ«»oaaX X«X^ aitt at i«X««| ImM 

.7a^9«r XJiXnataai « 0t *••«»•« tftfXw X«Xvt 

tXJta frlB«<iB »iuf»0 ^XvaXvat a€(9 tatft tX*«MtixA ■! tX 

tqni«^ nt SI {tadw ttrajlaAttJi aX »aiJH«T 94i tMtw ^Imii* if*» a iMM9$ 

n*fc' Jaat to »flaX#B»i»t JX* ^aaii«ftXv» atff t»^tf9Xw taatloMi arft 

»«»ail l>a« aaaaa«»lv •«» »«i eKw ,v«»t •<» •» hvUkmfm tX^a«««f 

o» &aXl«t AiMf ttX»nX«X«( *»tf* aaw «oXa«X»floa ajl .xtx»aa# •«!& 

^wf» to a»fi«'saa«o<t*«4 • t^ j»X*Xf«»« wtt %• aAoXtAaaXXA «« avo«f«| 

ax MXauXMoa 9tti9 feXaa atf iwa »X worf •♦« *aii aft •« .awaftlva 



.-•^ &^ A^^A^.. ;«.aL^I^ «i>i;^» M_^* *a>S*l 



Mft tohe 1 1 , 'i\<)», oonoure. 
0*Cdonoir, J. , di«ie«atlngt 

In ay oplnloa th^ «via«iie« »h&vs th».t the soatii portion of 
th« roadvay of Oermsk road w«8t ©f i>eart>ora »tjM»et vat* torn up eo 
tli&t tiiA e&flt bm»nd traf f le w«e shuntud to tbi north &n^ Q^uXd i^ro- 
o«ed eait anlf ®a th* south ©r ea«t Iwund Rtreet oar tr^ek. In d#- 
eeribltiff tJj® «iltu&tlon counfel fer tef^ndanta In th.«ir ferl#f ©ay J 
"From tJie i%l.lr«>«4 right of w»y e&et to r«der*l itreet (a gfeort 
block) and south of the streot e»r trcielcs, th« a&rpDKlt p&v«%«nt oa 
Cox'isalc Eo«/& wae torn up. fhis all foz%ed a «ort of bottl« natikp so 
thjtt All ▼«hleulftr truffle on C«rKA)t Bond vas foreod to tbm north 
side of Coimak R©«.d from F«dtp»l 3tr««t w««t un^r th® vlasSuot, In 
f&ot, th« autosobllo traffic va« 8htt»t«d by ?»tan» of truffle oo«- 
trol lln«c« onto tiio «tp««t; ear ti%«lte at ateout th« inttrsoetlon of 
&outli l>oa7l»orA fitroot with Comak Hoad. « 

fk» aeol&ont hapoonod about wh«r« Oojmtak f9»A wsuX& bo 
int«r««ot«d by Penrborn etrtet, !^©Ia»rnoy, driving tii« autoaoblla 
«as straddling the north z*alX of tiso ^i««0t bound tr&ok - the propor 
plae* for hXm to drlvo. Tlio tmok was bo log driven east, south of 
the traoki and swonred to tho north on &ooount of the ooadltloa of 
th« pavosHint on tho tooth side of tho street, as abovo et&tod, so as 
to prooeod o^st on tho toiath stroot oar ti^ek. i»h«n tb« truok 
BWirvtiA to tho north, HoXmmoy saw tho hoi^dlighte on the truok aaa 
thought thoro vws to bo a U«ad«oa oolllslon and la an ondoaror to 
avoid It, turno4 his oar to tho south and tho drlvor of tho truok, 
with tho taiao purposo la nlnd, turnoS tofrard tho north, but it was 
too lat« to provent a oolllslon. 

Ja this ftato of tho rooord, I think the veriiet of the 
Jury finding defondants not guilty is against th@ isaRlfost voifht 
of the ovidonoe. 



-^b t%i ,mvy,i «VA» i*»%i% bamta ta«* <se 49«*a tuAf no %lita #»«• JbiHte 

o^ -1CVA9.&I19 fl« al bntt AoitXXXo9 iu»Ht»«»4 ji n^ dt Mw •««(iit l£E||ii«4^ 
sn y 3i #jtr< %tltt9a mit bvtmoi b^ofsai ^UiJLai aX vao^taiK] mum 9tit xatv 

7^lX«w 4^««>tiiiMi Asir ittaJiB^M »l x^i^**^ i^^ »itt»im*'i»h ioXJto,Xt i%uil 

,f«ftft6Xr9 atfCt )• 



a»$ssi,iu A. M, mp'&m0i^ 




^^l%?:>.,^ 






*. 



) 

) 

Apptllant, ) 




eeei somtx. 



3 05I.A. 489 

fcR. jiTSf jsf mmmux sihirmm ths ofieiois or the sotmt. 

Plaintiff brought tttlt All6gi»|f that on weteber 81, 1936, 
la Syaatton, llllnoi*!, defea4&nt« Klarr en^ P«t«re©n fee»&ult«'S hla 
with vloleaet and a&lielouely b««.t and i^oiiadesi-fclfflj up©rt the trial 
•p«elAl lat«rr©g*torle« wer« »ul>»lttsa to the Jury &»feia|; ^hetivtr 
•aeh def«m4a8t, raspeotlvely, 8!«llciou«ly ana violently &«sa«lt«^ 
aad baat th» plalatif f ; eaeh of th«i>« lnterr©gstorl®e was en«w«re4 
la th© aff Irsatlva and both dafaadajtta v«r« fouad g\»llty; r'*ter«oa 
was aeeatMfi 4100 to oof^fMineate for plaintiff** d&stage* and deftnd- 
aat KlaiTT *iK>Oj FtterBoa hae pftiA his anount aaa daf^ndaat Itlarr 
aleaa appaals. 

film defense wae that g^lalntiff negllgeatly drove hie auto* 
aoMle lato tiM» aatGOioblle drlvea hj Slarr, eaueing It to oolllde 
with aaoti^er ear; that plaintiff drove his ear away froa the eeeae 
of the accident ftfithout giviag his aa»e or addreas andt that llarr 
pursued plaintiff for the purpoee of appreheadlag hl» aafi tumlag 
hia over to the polioe; that vhea Aefendant ooaspelleS plaintiff to 
•top hie ear aad denanded that he return to the aear#et polloe 
station, i:'lalatlff etrueic Klar^ and refused to ffo, whereupon ll&rr 
used oaly «u«h foroe as was aeeeeffary to arrest plalatlff and com- 
pel him to f© with Ma to the pollee ^tatioa in p^vanaton, Illlaole. 

The evidenee presented to the Jury on behalf of plaintiff 
was oontradleted in alaofft every respeot by that offer«fi on behalf 



\ 



\( ./^ft} 









'G8^,A.IS0 8 



jBir! &*^iiut«a4 AOsi*} •'; u0* i^mXJI t9f!A&i9t»)*& , •ioiiLti.it ^fiic7nn«ir ai, 
ttkl%i »di «<»<^ Sjsiil i>(»£>fUff w i^ l^ftd %Jj||r«iAi.i««i. Jillft •4a#«Xolf ii:ri«r 

•«I«»(S«tA »r:oiJe 

•J>iIX»:^ .vfaiiv«9 t'KfwIi ^tf «tf^*i^ DXitJoa^tu* M^ QiaJL »XXtfcui 

•utog «ii«r Aovt vMu iA» nine fvimft }%ii«i.i»i:q: iAAi |t»o f^rs^^n* £(?iw 
t^aXX lAiiSr iNOUft MrtfiLtA *io •■«« «liS iffXti:^ ium/^m^ ia^iiilo** «^ 

•I ttXIolAXq k^ttJKifi^ ja«2>s»1»J> £»^v t«i& {•oiX*4 mlt.9* "»▼« sXii 

90iXoq ;r«^A«Ji 9£i o3 niiii9t »ti 9<iiAt ib«X<iMi»& JhM. ««• «i4 ^o9» 

'itAli. fie<«v«riii^ ««9 of ;i^««vl»? £>i^ <s^aX^ j^ain^v )Vfisi!^'9 «(ioX^a^« 

o^svoa Md ^U|eiAi<i tVM.'TA e9 tiMfta«*M« i^Mf a« »o'io.3 40ift %X0i> £>#«« 
.aioiiXiXI «noJ«£tAT^ el aoi^A^i •9XX«q t4^ o> aXil ^Xw #a c^ eXii X«i{ 
ti}eX«Xq[ !• );Xj»4«d no v:'£u(» VJ^ o7 697fi9««aq «on»AXT« MfT 



of S«fend»at. Pl&tatlff whb 51 y«au»« old, S feet 5 Incfeee tall, 
v«lghlii^ &lM}Ut l^& |>Otti^c at th« tlii« ef the oeourr«n99. £»«f#n«asnt 
wa« 31 y««r« old, tf«lgliln§ *ppr«>xi««t«Xy 176 pounds, "ilwi altareatlon 
hApj?«n«d OR tla« somlng of Oe%ob«r 31, 1936, on staerldAft v^&A rj«fer 
f?oje« fftp»«t ia ^'▼«n«ton; tills w&s ^hosceoalng* day ».t iJor'«iw«8t«m 
W»lv»rel«y and truffle »t tJi«it point v«« h#&Tjrj tii# e«r« w#r« p«rte«<l 
on feoth sides ©f the etr^^ot, l#«vlng; oaly ttoe two «IM1« l»aee for 
traffic; plftlBtiff laaA parkod bl» e»r f«oliR^: north on th# «&«t side 
of the street, la front of & group of fr»t«rnlty H©a«#8 <wad dorel- 
tories %,h^r« h« v6« to a^et hl« oousln't eon, Charlee MeClollau^d, 
to t«lt« bla to plulntlff '« hoai* In «ll»ttt«| aftor ?^e<ll«ll«a4 had 
gotten Into the e*r plaintiff cirovo out Into tht ftortial>ottnd l&ne ana 
■i^ft tlukt Mt right re«r fend«r gr«*«a the l«ft rear feiid«r of & ear 
parkod In front of tS^ete; th«y proeeodod northv&ra on :^N»rldftn at tt» 
rato of 18 to IS alio* «n hour; plaintiff «&y«i this was the only a«?- 
oldont la «kleh tie was Involvod. 

Klarr says h# vaa in tho northbound traffic lan« Mh€)n 
plaintiff suddaaly tumad hl« ear lato ttile twiffle lane without 
notloo and struck Kl&rr*« ear, forelng It Into tha aouthboand lana 
and oaualnf It to oollida with a ear coming froa tha oorth« 

Cofandaat Slarr follon^d plaintiff, goln<»> north on isharldaa, 
drev© Mb ear alongslda that of tha plaintiff and craahad Into It In 
an attaapt to foro« plaintiff** ear to the curb. At Isabella street • 
ona-half to tvo-- third • of a alle north of Soya a - defendant foroafi 
plaintiff •« ear to th© ourb. Aooordln^ to plaintiff* story, ©or- 
roborat«d ^ l<^oClolland, F^larr eama around to tha aaat slda of plaln-> 
tiff* IS! «&r, opansd tha door, reached Inslda and grabbad pl&mtlff by 
hie J&ck*t and haulad or dragged hla out of the oar. there 1» v^ry- 
Int teetli^ny a* to ^dfciat ha.ppened nezt, but the jury could properly 
belle V© that Klarr etruok plaintiff i©v«ral blowa. 

Plaintiff received a cut on the noee, both eye« wsre bl&ck- 
ened« a out on the forehead, a out through the eyelid, a inmllen Jav, 



.•OftftniiMio ^^ %• Miil •ctt tA ntmu^ SAX ttfdm ffiUt%kwt 

n^ai su>^«9 Im ttt ••iteiwqr 9VI iX»JMrlx<Mi«[<|A lAil^iew ,6X0 t<K«tt XB taw 

tsnti bmtn aa^JMiaiKi; «• ,d8fX ,X6 t*(^o#90 )• gfl/moni vif^ cm btiitqqMl 

ft»iln8 7 «»'«<*w *►«*»« -Iff* Jt^»«j| •«« ^flioq tjutf im oll^tatt b«» Xtt^tvftM 

te ivt <icf9 YXao i|(!!Xvtt*X tft'vt}* «i£i )e ••fti» dtixf «• 

v^^ 17 no /itfton ;^»»t nM^ till 6«i4t*q Jkad tt^fsiAXq iditlwsf 

''I «i««7«0 t'linwirs^lt tc qu0r$ « te ;fit«tl al ,f*«^a •<!} to 

,tr;^jl.:)i.>9»i 9»iXiuiift> .|M« ii*ii|0«o» »X/( a-M« •# o«« Oil oteAr.a.oiiMk} 

^al:( £^eAXXoX9»K tolt« toffoarXXW Hi Aaoiff •*initfil«X« o» oirf oMftl ot 

JtoA oaaX &ffVotfi&T«0 iM!v 09 v<Ti£> tlif/flJiXv r otfii nottof 

'^•t tom ftoX oilt Aoso^ votoot r»w% i^ln ' iVii 

«ift •« ;<!tfO£f BO ••Xlo r to oflnc 

.&«YXovffi a«v on itf ^obis 
.1". V .^/ ion ftfft ni ««« gifj t$xM9 vt&li 

iA» «: ? xLa*jbhM tlX^iiloXq 

.5f5;a,! tJliiK»c- -itot ,1SOO •'iW* ' ''^ ftfl* OOitOA 

^ttfitdtt »ii3 m^n'i }i&im^& ^ao o ftfiv oBlXXoo «^ 91 anlouoo Aim 
,fiAJ»lrt9£C£- no d^toif 'mi^ «tti^AloXq ftowoXXot mmtl tnolMio^oQ 

to tofff oAitanoXo too oiiS ovovft 
' ''il«l«/<l oo-wt o# # ^ 

-.;,■: .••;i alXr « tO sAndrfy-Owt o9 lX;a£i-aftO 

? ^i^iitneoo , -^ oK^ 0? *1^i*«ioX«i 

-rs -m asjio -ii ■ ic 6«i««jocfot 

>te JT iJi-^fA-Ui^ r->co«-rfj r^fii; ^ot^^ni ^ofioo^i ,T'~oi' -^r^f jj^rwrjo «^oo »*ttil> 

-T^iT ai »«t«fP .•Mto oiTi^ to J0O oirf l>»85|iw^ ao l)f»Xsmd ham j- '--■ vtd 

„f... ... -.,... -,- ...„.,» jjjfj j^„^ ,»x«n f^- -'■>--■■ ■■ *'-'-i-' "--^ - ■■■ '"^^ :il 

,3«roXd X«it»v«a ;;...,....>,.., ;.....,.-.. -:' 

-ioAli' . '•v'. f*itvf «o«04i ftrft «o *tf0 o fiorXooe*! Iti: _ 

,#Bf. ffoXl :« o^ d%isvtdS Su9 e ,5»©rf*i;«>t orf* no liio o ,fto«o 



fef«ral ssbraeioae oa the jaw and ©h©ek mn& & esmll fraQtar« iss ©at of 
th« boaee ©f tfee «lbO¥. k pteotogr&ph of pliilntiff .1-^ la %m ,.j^0or«l 
tending t© ooaflrKa i^airRe Injurit^s. ?#teriion grsbbed plaintiff trem 

hit his oae« or twic« aor«. A d€Mstor testified, tkst h« «j£A«la«4 
plaintiff oa thm day of tht injuries, f^uM hia al»o«t by»terle&l, 
with tw© d«fln4t#, deeg eut® on th« ii«Rd aM ©brasionB &ad l^slana on 
th» ffece; t&tt plaintiff wae confatt^ R^nd ^xeitablc, £n& the iaetor 
dl&gnosoci hl« Oft«r as « e&ntuslon cf th« brain. 

It le uaiMO«e»AJcT to d«©id« vfii«th«r plaintiff ^m» lavolTtd 
in a «elli«ioa vlth «»ot^r Automobile » as tesitiflea to ^ Klarr and 
daniffd by plaintiff, or vb«th»r ht *raf leaving the seen* of an ae» 
eident. riaintlff was takan, while in this hysterloal eonditlon, to 
tb» EvanitoB ^lla© station wh«r« h« was found g\iilty of lestvlng th« 
emine of an aooldant and fined, but ttsit is not of d©ol»ive lapor- 
tane« in thie oaso. 

It Bay bo a*Bitted that a privfet« psraon may arr«at -#itii©«t 
ft warrant for a ttiodtswaaer ooaaittad In hi« preeanoa, but neither an 
off leer nor a privata T^rmint in attaa^^tin^ an arr««t, «ay r««ort to 
exeaeaiva or um^atonabla ferca. Klarr a^ite it waa not aaoaeaary 
to infliet saeh injur its upon plaintiff and adwite ha baat plaintiff 
as j^uniahsi«nt for leaYlng tha eoana of an aeoidant. ue tettif i«d, 
*I aaainlstarad a little puniabaent to Andareon; ** and again, mat 
'*And«reon will n9'<nT forgot, he will n«v«r laava tha aoana of an *^e» 
ttlAaat again. * 

Utta Jury, whioh saw tha vltnaa^as and hs&rd thas tasttlfy, 
veuld have little trouble in arriving at Gie ooneluelon that th« un- 
provoked assault by defendant upon the older plaintiff was unlatrful 
and iMilioloue. fba vardiet of 1800 w«a not exeesslve in vi^v of th<s 
eerious nature of plaintiff* r wounds, 

l>«fendant taye the oourt eosmitted error in Injstruotlng the 
Jury that although they might eontidar the fact of plaintiff's eon- 
vietlon of & tr&ffio offense In another proeeedlng, suefe finding is 



^dAi«i&;Lai ■».!. iaiiJ &«i1;X#«9d' 'X9fo»/> . -'Oiis tttyit to •(mo sld ild 

,Laoin*fB\ft cTinoalA al/1 ftAvot ^B9tiul£^X \'j^ mii no ttltnlAXq 

fir: oi:iiii<f<f/7 jboa A««>d « iLo ^o9i> ,«^ifill«jb ow;r tttiv 

. 2ji^<f mU lo ftftlstfln o ii .iji 9ii*c aid 6««<Mi;;^b 

^niA TUX.H ftf 0^ b^ttltn^f •» « ailcfoKOi ue iMffiMiiit iltix aoi«lIio& « .a 

»»» (Uk 1« «a«»a Adtf aaltrA*! •«» fl fdiiim 19 ,ttX9AJUil«l x<^ Jbtliiftft 

,aoi«X&a<»o lAOltdfoxii aiilJ Ai •llsbt ,«•](«« ftAw DitaXAXH ,»is«ftl<l 

19 ^iVAtX to t'liii:^ bjiifot oow td otA^tr aoitsia aoilo^i aofanova (KI9 

•0000 alii} ai 9»tmi 

nm tiuiStmi iud «»ofl«aoa^ ai^i al IMlttmmo ivuum^JbrnAm * lot iiunnmm m 

o^ irtotftt YitA! (Tntrtt? no inifviato^rtfo ni ,aoataq otavliq a 'xon 'soollt# 

tiAaaooon « ila^ti viaIH .oo^oli oXdoaoaiiaimi le ovioaooso 

Itl^itioXq food fiiif afJUifto Aiui mfAloX<i ii<K|V aoiiatni' ^v^f* filial 9t 

,K«njt9#^ . nobloao a« lo onooa oifiT golvooi ael fnoffixlalmrq ao 

■io " tAoaioJ^fliv ot IftOMdaXiUfq alsr^il « 6«ao#ainiaS>s 1" 

-o^. fijs to w«9»« *di avaoi t«v»« iXXw ad ,*oyiol toiroo XXiw aooisiAflA*' 

* .oXa^ taoAX* 

,i;;')X;lftoJ' so4;r M^ad bam aonaonjTXv «fl(t <#«« iioldw iXtvl 9iiit 

>r ^JsuXoaoo oiH iM s^lyrtnm nX aXtfuovf oX^fXX avoil ftXtfow 

XutwoXPi^ ifi^tflXoXq 'X»l>Xo %M aoqu 9iu5n«la^ trowt 

<vXa909Jto ion & foXA^sv odT .soroXoXXiMB An* 

.aJiMuiow ^*1t1X2iii4i«j; to o^inTai) ajjoXioa 

f»^ ^fiUQunt^al nl tento bvftlmeio^ rtHttO «^ »^c ^iioftGolaa 



«vid«Rtl&l oaly &iia aat telR^lnf; or coaclufl-re «p to the faot-s In th« 
pree«nt c&«e. Tills vmw & eorrnet et&t«@#nt @f the l&v, 

W©weY«r, all @f tfee 4B.i^ument an^ lastruetlonB given or 3P«?- 
fu8€r4 t9*i«ifelng the alleged ceiBaiseion of a traffic offens® toy plain- 
tiff haiT* no iM&riag upon ta« sole ou^etlon %n thits Q£?«<» tk&mi^l}ff 
Old dftfwndant ttB« »xceg«lv» and unr#asoa«,We fore# in atitesi*ti«ig %ts 
Itrrtst plAlntifft a* w© h«ve ladieated, fe« «?vldeae«3 tliat 4#feMfetat 
was guilty in thlit r«8p>««t %raa so dv^r^elmlng && to siu^s &1I d^er 
isaa#«i by qomparleoo, lni&t«rlal. 

the Jury r©tU3m«d the only verdlet thsit ©ould preperly be 
rsturnad, and tla« Judftaent thereon 1« dffiraed. 

Ma.tGli«tt, J-', J,, and C Connor, J., eoneur. 



t\X'»Ajin t—M9 mlAt nJt fi«i9r«»m> •Xe« »i(# fi04iv yilaiiMf on vfMd YlU 



,iutMo» t.T. «ie«A»w*o Am ,.\».i t$t9ii»iMM 



40901 



▼. 



M&'HL&A latLin, A^mie-> 
Ov. tratrlx, tto., | I 






305 I.A. 490 



MR. jmtiGE memmiJi ii«Ltfmm ?h>: opikiok of ths ooimt. 



ftol0 proe»tdlng involvtt th« for^cloipupft ef the li«a of * 
tru»t d««d d&tsd MAToti S4, 1929, axvootftd by John and i^osaIIa £adla, 
which hAe alr«ftd]r e«)oup>l«d an uneonselea&hle «»ount of tlae of tht 
court «• 

»h«a plaintiff fll«4 hl» eoH^l«lat of for«ol©sttr« Hove«b«r 
5, 1936, hft aindA H«tll(3a l^ocilin, IndlTldualXy and a« a^lnifitrfitrlx 
Qf th« octat* of Mieha«l Oorcki, a party defendant; a daeraA wac «n- 
tered ord«rlng a iale of ths property, from which Matilda lEoalln 
appaalod dir«etly to tht Ssttprom* court, elalKing a prior ^udgseat 
lion on tho pr©p«frty by vlrtuo of a door«« In favor of Oerski, and 
attacking th« validity of tha tmut d#od and tho for«eXesitr« pro» 
Qooding; tho Uprose oourt, boing of th« opinion that ao froohold 
was involvod, tranpftrrod the ease to this eourt, (370 111, 804.) 

la an ©pinion filed by thl« court October 23, 19SSJ, 301 111 
App, (ab«t. } $10, wo gava conffidoration to th« varioti* olaiHC of 
Matilda Yo«lin, with epaeial r«f«r»ne« to h«r elalm that a ereditor'e 
bill was filsd to «ubj«et ICudla*e proporty to the lien of an avard 
nada to Miohaol Oorejsi undor tho )iotkmi»n*» Conponeation Aet and that 
plaintiff's right* %?er« subordinata to tha Ooraltl dooroe. *• hold 
agaiact thou* elaiae. 

Ttm aacter in ohanoary adv«rti«ed and told tha presiiiO» in 
aooordanoe with tho ters« of th« doorea for IS500, and tha roport of 
th« dale and dietribution was apprerod; Katilda loolin filod ex- 
Goptione to thiff raport, i^iieh ver« overrulod, and again eha appoalad 






\ 



^iiX^U^^l : 



-sia •«<« ftovo^ft A ;}OAJ!>n«ttaft x^l^q « ,X](»tefi X««<(oXM to •#alt« «!# %e 

ftXX«oX aAXXIs'^ iiciXifw MMit iX^iw^ivsq ttfT t« •X^a « ifllvttMo ib»ni»t 

IfUMiilibttt «s<iXvq « SflXMiAXo (ituiM «(ifln<|ii*: mM 09 xXtov^A J^Xa«<{1|« 

-ortq »njj«oiorxel td^ l^iut A««ft 9 tint Mtt lo vsTjUXXav fttff BAiatauittii 
i>X^d»^t M jr«r(^ aoXi!iq« «dtf to ^IwA ,r'urO» (WMiiiiC Mfir iSAii^«M 
(.I'C^ .XiX OTS) .jhuioo tX4} ^ oniw Mtf i^«aa«l«jircff ^AwXOYnX •«« 
iXX X0$ ,e&<iX ,^!a tMroJ^u ^iw^e ti^ t(i AAXit tciMlq^ a% «Z 

to neiiiiXit aiioXiJiv Mit o# n«Jt?«nL«ikiitiioo rtrAS *^ «<^Xa (.tMTa) .qpcA^ 

«*'{O^X&on& A Ijuti ai«Xo iwd et •Ofiant'trx XaX9«<i« xUitr ,fUX»o£ AbXXJTAM 

h^jmsb pjk le nail «49 o? l^-xs^^o^^l •*AXI»u.y lofittfo* od A»XXt saw XXXcf 

tAlft &IIA $0<^ noX^TAAflA^lpoC a'^MU^Ovr «^ "XtAfUf liftYOO XAAifoXM d9 •&«• 

Maxi a>^ .9910A& liaioi: «fi^ of vitoLlimvAWk •%»» af^lsl^ a'tt/iTAXAXq 

.9mX«Xa (MAftt tAAlAlA 

!q ^'soqM ftiit hnn ,OOMi 'SAt An^Ai^ »£l9 to %vnvt »sit titXv ••aaJ^oaaa 

*xs d»£il ftXX»oX Ai^XXlA^. tJ&tnrenqqA «aw floX*if<fX'z9iii& Aha aXas «(ir 

AftXAftaqs «jei« nX«iiA JbtiA ^vo tnnv AalAi .^oast eXrf^ a^ aaoXIqAO 



to %h6 ^upptfis© court, as8«rtiRg tlmt a fi^ehoia was lnvolir«d, fh.# 
S^prtim court k«Id ot]^r«nft« and trtmsf«rr«d the o«u»« %& tkl» court. 

on 111. 95a.) 

Th« oaljr point nov before thie court Is th« r«gul<ui'lty of 
tim sal© And tfes ordor approving It. Th« r»e©r)li «hoiri that ttia 
suist«r «ol4 the property t&r >b3O0, n^eh was th« higtmet and l>«»t 
liid for oa«h{ th« attornajr for Matilda Yoelin aveerte that this «al« 
was not for eaed&f bat th« neovA ahmtn to th« oontr&r^. ihe alao 
a(<8«rt« that she Ma, ©n bahalf of H»tllda lfo«lls, >S5SQ, whieh 
shcmld hav« h«aft aoe«pt«d \ff Sha »aster. Th« rteoird. shoi^s that nh» 
did not told thlt aaurant in each but offered in pajnaent the deoree 
•nterad upon her oredlter'e hill baaad on the award to Oorskl, to 
Khloh prooeedln^ plaintiff was not a party, and which, aa ve have 
Been, wae held by thie court to be Inferior to the rights of plain- 
tiff and the right* of the trust deed foreclosed herein. 

»1MB the SNk«ter*« report eoMe before the ehanoellor he told 
eouneel for Matilda Yoelin that if ehe i^ould bring into court a 
eathler*e eheok for 150 leore the eourt would aeeept It, but thie 
propeeition wae not acted upon. 

Her preeont appeal i« wholly without merit. '^It ie Just 
ae iJRjportant that there ehould be a plaee to end a» that there should 
1M a plaee to begin litigation. * utpll v. OottHab . 305 U. 3, 1S6, 
172. 

the order of the ehaneellor approving the ®&«ter'E report 
of sale ii affirmed. 

essim Ammmn, 

Katehett, F.J., and O'Connor, J., ooneur. 



•fit ,b9r£t7VoJ 1SW I^X«)iil»«'sl » Smli )iiXfT«««« ,t7tr«« mmiyt^ •cflT 0t 

(.5Ca .1X1 ITS) 

«iAa ni^ fudi «jr'«»ftt« Ai|f»oy «lkXil»t<f tot x^trtofta MTr !if««e 10*2 tut 

••JU Sfli^ .fXAT^eOO IMlJ 04 «Wi»A» M«»n tif# ^ff< ^M»9 /to) ^4MI t^ 

doldw «c>3SdV «filX»fly iiJbXitAK to IX^iUMf JM (Mtf »da #Aiff ttiM»« 

<^•*t»•^ ttflf {TftMrtntl nt lHtt%VH» tut dmtit at iammm •idt hM t«rt Ml^ 
«# ,titrtet» of M«v« «(ft mm Ibtmmt lltd •*nm9iikmtb ymI iivqtf l»*^<i»tii# 
•ir^jf tw ft* td9litv bum iX$%»q m ton ««v ttltni*X<i Bftil^»*Mnq tfsMr 

.nX«^^ fi*t<»I»<Hto1t b%mh s^mt tuif \m ftttfjiM msi9 hatt "VXtf 

It f<(i»«9 mini liaXnMf f^XMw •«{» ^1 9Mit ntttt »i>Xl9«if "vet X«)immo 

.i3«t<!!» B«f%« #<MI t«v tfml9 l9m^pv<i 
39Ui ml tt* .fft^a fttmativt xSlottn •! IwKfecJi fnr«»«iit; <x«& 
?ir»ir;.:<» '»^?'4?'?i ^Tftrf^ «« ftft« of #ct«X^ « Mf bluotht «nmd§ fMM' tf'iutirieqBri »« 
. . 6or. , cfBii»»«t? > f x«>»:- '^.flcXffejiJtix rti3i<Mf o# «»«Xq « f<r 

,fiTX 
,l>««nJtyfc» Hi «Xft« ^© 



409S4 

Fsx^u. or fm smm' or illimo 



rdop 







TH» WEST SiDiS J^U3T Am SAVXMii 
aASX OF* CHI 



oouii'ne. 



05I.A. 490 



m., juatici u^mmhi oelitemkd thk opxhtok or in^ ooimf. 

AW Mloli«l8on filed hit petition In the llquid&tion yiro- 
«««4iligt of fhA w«et $id« Trust &nd SATlngs Bank of Ohle«go aefclng 
for the alXovano* of a pr«f«rr«d el«.l» of s45,000 &n(k for g«ner&I 
relief J the c^&notllor bold thAt his prtfortnee was Halted to casto 
on h&nd and due f rois banks at the time of the cloein^ of the bank, 
and alao denied other relief sought, and froa thl» deox*ee petitioner 
appeals. 

W«B the $45,000 in the poseeselon of the bAnk to ne used 
hf it for a epeelfle purpose or was thle an ordinary deposit, on a 
parity with general depoeitore? 

The evidence before the master showed th^t petitioner, 
prior to Fehru&ry 19, 1952, had been in the irholegale olo thing 
iMttlnees in Chioago for alx}ut twenty-eight year*; he was illiterate 
and unable to read or write Fnglleh} hie eignature, which apj^ears in 
the record, Indioatee this; be did hie banking business Kith The 
West Side Trust and leavings Bank, hereafter celled the Sank, %Aifire 
he iras a depositor Kith a general eoniaerioal account? he purehaeed 
real eetate aortgaifes throu^ L. H, Beya&nn, preeident of the bank, 
and a speeial aeeount ^loh he had in the bank iimuld be ehax^d with 
the amount of these purohasesj these eeouritles, which are itesiiced 
in the petition, were kept in the poeeeeaion of the bank, vhioh 
Issued to petitioner a "Safe-keeping receipt." 



♦WfiN^ 



^j i-'% 






^ 



i 



\ J in mum 



( ,,, ,^j««iI^!>-;;-:«*-n«X»oiiiJ*-i 



o0Qq noi^Afti&plX wur Hi nolJlSftq viii £9Xil a08X«tfolM stfA 

JUK«fi«8 5r0t An* GOO 1,9*-^ to «l«Xi Bvnttrif a t« «ftiiJW«XX« «l;t <to1 

isjsn 0} b9iimll s»w •9ji«v«l«vq »ld f»i$ bl%d t0XX*MUJf» 911} tloiX*^ 

t%m»d 9at to ^iaoX9 ««tt to «Ai^ ttdbr «« tMm^ «i»tt •ii(^ &fiB bnart no 

i9nol$l$ti •(»«••£ tiiit s(»tt f»n4 ,9£<StfO« t»£Xt« itt4f« AolAvA oiXa htu 

&{»»i> ^.. ;^« TLami rnlf "io noi«t»a«oq «itf oX OOCtS^t Atft «»tf 

^i^'i^oXo •iMAXoifw •dt nl n»ft(f Aju( ,sr.&X ^^X x^jund»'^ oi latiq 

^}ct<i<»tiXXl SAW 9A }*%»•% titSit9*%tR9»f iaeim t^t es««l^O ni n^^mtaitt 

'I aiJBvqqe rtoi{fv « ini/ir aosIi till siiaiXsn^i •;rXnw ae bttm^ t •XtfMUt iNM 

•iff ittiw ■•fMX«inr HftXJbiacr «iil AXlk (U( initii »«$AoXtol ,Moft»^ «lC^ 

*^9iiw .XiuaiL «£r9 £oXX«9 ttitAM*^ ,Jtea« atnXirAt Aiui tam? «*!« ttitf 

£tfii««/i9iui<% airi ;|9n0oo9« X«»l*xaa»09 X4rx«a«3 m tUiv t99tB9qipb » ■«« ad 

riw fins'tftdo Ml fiXtfov IttMd •/» ml b»ti •d iloXtiv tntf^oo* Xaioaqa « fi)a« 

bBstm^it »iJ8 d©idw ,»9X}iii«i9M •a»xll |t»tjute*j«q •■«!» to tmrem a^ 
4oiriv «;MjMr »riJ t© aoiatMaoq •iOr nl t<i»i *«•» »«©l*itaqf arfif «1 



^- 

fehrtiRipf It, 193S, tm bAAk. wae holding in fusSe keeping 
for petitioner <f!0euz'ltl.«6 of th© f»ee value ©f l6a,OC>0| in aeeembftr, 
1931, somfl) of th«&e seeurltii^? had def&ultdd &nd pet itle»«r die- 
<»tt«0«d t!i« 3i&tt«r with M. A. w«lr, thft b&nk*« eaftMer; HeyaHst.nn, th«> 
president, and s^«lr tfe«n toad ^gotlatlons *#lth petitlonsr At a r«B«lt 
of irfMoh oa Fe1wro*ry 19, 1932, tJie bartSc parchaecd all of petitioner' » 
eeeuritles for «4fi,000, whiefa wls & loeis t© Mss of I17,000J th« eb«ok 
fer 145,000 -imtt iteusd by the b&nkj '!*'©ir inquired of petitioner what 
)t« v&ff going to do vith thfi mon«y; petitioner replied h.« wii^s & eiok 
amk and want«d to protftet hie family and vas folns to buy liberty 
bonds with the i45,000| Hoyaaaa said liberty bonds were too j&igb 
then but that he would purohaee theoi for petitioner; oa petitioner 
inqairiog se to what Heyaaan v&yl& do with the money la the meaii- 
tlse, Keyaaan replied he had told Mr. <^«ir, the cashier, to put the 
w»»ey in a special account, "and it ie Jufst the ease like you got 
your bonds and nortnagee in safeokeeping, ^ and ''when t^# bonde go 
0mm* he would buy then for petitioner. The oheek was not in ps» 
titloner*f possession but he endorsed it and turned it over to *eir, 
receiving a deposit elip fron s^eir; he said he was ''kind of diszy" 
and did not examine it. The president a^ain repeated that Vkm eheek 
was <*like you got your papef> in safe keeping and we buy liberty bonds 
for you. * thereafter plaintiff inquired at the bank onee or twioe 
a week ae to whether they had purchased the liberty bonds for him. 

>^elr testified before the master that Keyaann told hia to 
refer the petitioner to hira as he did not want petitioner to draw 
the money out of the bank} that petitioner «rae to be thrown "off the 
traok froa buying liberty bonds? * that all of the banke were in 
desperate straits on February IS^ 1932, and thereafter, and the bank 
did not wish to deplete its assets by having petitioner withdraw his 
145,000, ?«eir said he was instructed always to tell petitioner that 
the aarket on liberty bonds was still too high, and he, petitioner, 
*wae always east aside;** that in ootolwr, 1933, the money was etill 
in the bank waiting to be used for the purohaee of liberty bonds. 



iCofida mii tOOA«?Jt| to ajUf wT tft*! il •■*« doliSv ,000,9^ net ^«i;tiainit« 

jkoli a «A« «;; l«iX3t[tHi «9ft0itfit*q ttMi«ii 90$ lUhi oft aiT afliO^ ««« 4Ml 

X^tmarii t<^ 9t 3iiio3 •«» biut tIJtiiiat mXA t^^^omq 9i h^tRvu ham um 

tts/itA ««f 9%»t ■X>fi<Kr xtnvilX bist aa»m%9U tOOO.ft^l siil attv •ba<a4 

n9ii6>t1lt9q no \n9n9tstiwi lol amit ••Aiirurq hSjHm lul tAdt y»tf ii«i9 

t «1IXX •OAH «/{ir tOfft ti tl hn&* ,tit0OO9A lAiOIKtM A nl tMOM 

«2i ai^MO^ tiff} flsifw* 6iu * ,Siii4»«jf-«t»« ttl tttipliftofl Bfu aBfidtf iiret 

t«.; 0* l»vo ;ri fctirtuJ^ Inn tt b^i^ofcn* •!! ttKf ii«l»i9fftoq •'<tft0Oili:r 

^tsaX& ti» I>aXj(* a«w ftfi Mas (u( {<z1^ ««rvl qila ^laeq«db a 9ttiTl»»«n 

ie»dti H'l&i isxiH A«^AAq»*t n^ASA ftt^hUtnft Mff .tl Aflimuct ton JbiA ba» 

al^Ji«Kf t^i'^^lX ttfd •» 6ffA -sirl^VAaf •lAi «i tMitA^ %u«x #oai not wtil* •«« 

notvf 10 none sCnAdf ofif t» bwrttapat ttltslitlq tAttA««i<Mtt * ,Mtt% lol 

.jRi<f ndl tfcflod XS1941T »tit Hnttibttmi %mi t*dV fOfniv 9t ha jfoAw a 

oS mlA bl09 fltiAmxnfi iadt z^ttiue 9^9 fpsolotf AAitlfaAt nisV 

vMth 0t tmotstsmit ftunt fm bib «»if »a nlJt ot ioffol;^i9«q fuSS 'XAlvt 

. . iK»w B:^Atf »{{# to IIa tAdt *!«l^od T^iAtfiX anltiKf eo^ ioA^tt 

:£Ajs«f 9^# fijtA ««i9ttA<nt#d(r bttA ,$^1 ^ix^Aidntfot no «:ri»<rt« »irA'x«g«oB 

Blti HisiBrttlw leflolS^ltsq b''^*«^ "0 *#»«»« »*1 otoiqsA ot ^i:^ ioa bib 

tAOS *t»lt9i^i9i»4; IX«» 0* otAvlA fcetoirsd^onl oaw mi *iAA <xi»« .000«S#$ 

.•zoooltiti^q ,9x{ Ma «ft^XiI O0t IXl^t ■«/ sMcmI t^totfiX ffO jr*:i«ui« odf 

llti* tuM %*a&m ti$ iSCtX «iitiref«0 nl :riui» "(oikltA #»«• at^^XA a«if* 

.Dteecf xtVAd^X to »aAiCe«ir« oifir •xot frAOtt •« of imiiXAw iMAtf o^ ill 



•»2^ 

i^^rll 1, 19*32, plaintiff im-© ill at M« h©»«, auA a* «li« 
r»<|ti«st of Hftymann, B«» Mlehelson, pstitloa»r*8 b2»©th«T, t©^ a 
blasdE cli«ck to petitioaer «r.<5 had his filga It, fiayiitg that l#y«&nn 
WAS goliif t© bay 4^,000 of liberty boade, tiais ebeek itpp«aj'» fee a. 
•luupf* agaiast tlj« *p«clal aecauat iMft April 1, 19S2. Th« toftRk did 
not buy tlft«t lib«rty bond* but r«depoelt«d this ehsok to th« »««© 
aseount aa the next day, ^ubse<|a«ntly petitioner had fr®qa«iit tallcis 
with HeyswiHn coneernlng^ purehase of tli© liberty bonds, H«ri®a!in 
assuring petitioner tluit th« market price was foia^ dswi, Petitioner 
left for California on January 1«, 1933; the Auditor of '*>Tabllc 
Aeooiiate took charge of the bank on March 4, 19?,? and a reoeiirer was 
appointed, the bank never reopened. February 19, 19.^2, and at all 
tlBes thereafter the bank had on hand in exoe^e of H@,000 in oath. 
All of the above faote are oontained in the report of the 
iMUster in ohanoery and iuppl©ia«ntal report by t!» saste offleer 
eervlng ftS a epeeial coaHRiesloner after the expiration 4f his term 
as »ast«r. The reports oonclude that the »45,000 left with the bank 
for the epecifio purpoee of buying liberty bonde beeane a txnigt fund 
for which petitioner vae entitled to a preferred olaiia; that thii 
vas established by the three pereont who wer«? present «t the time of 
the traneaetions. Heymann vae not produced as a witness imd did 
not teetlfy. me reports find that the bookkeeping mv.th&m ueed by 
the bank in handling the tun&B are of no iwportance in view of the 
agreement to devote the fund to a ejieeifio purpose; that fee devise 
1^ Heymann of placing the fund in a sjwjcial aeoount vae for the 
purpose of augaenting the bank** eaeh reserve*; that this did iwt 
change the relationship of the partiee. The euppleaental report 
r«oeaaa«nd«d a decree allowing to petitioner a U4B,Q0Cf preferred 
clal», payable Tir<? Fttt^ with other trust claiais out of tSie deposit 
made by ^m benk vlth the Auditor of Public Acoounte under the Trust 
Companie* Act {chap, M, petf* 2B7 et e«c. , 111. Hev. S-tate. 1039), 
and if this be insufficient, that the receiver of the bank pay the 
balance wlISi other preferred claims in priority over general elalme. 



«5* 
n^ tB ham ^iMtod vid fM in »m ttJ#ftliiC« \WH {f OM^ 

fuiaat*^ tmiff ^tttXM* ,^£ «n»l« el/f i>Md bn» ntttlttf^ of i««rf» MstmU 

&1^ tamU 9^ ,^^*^t ,X Xi'xcrA no toirooM JtjtJt9«^ •!» t«fii«S^ •VWUfft 
MTftft oiiSi «Mr <»«tfi!> 9iM$ htf^qpb^x tSHt «J&fte<f xfufNTtl ^HS xa^ ^oft 

©lldir^ To n»»Jfbui »r» jSCW ,dJ fuufiuit* no Aifrte^lljiD tot #t«X 

cj»« •i«Y{ftn<rx a bn» ''■*'.(} S ,^ ff»t»MI ff« ^fUMf wt^ lo 6ir««i{« ioot KfntfOOoA. 

iJDi ts ftiis «Sf.9X ,91 rraipuf*^ .l^MivtCMrr «c«T9ff ^md •ilT .ftvtf'fiX*^:^ 

.ifli«« nl OCOtflH' lo s^9t9x» ni ftn^rf no l*m/i Hmrni wAi iflVlJivtMGr t^tflt 

«tf9 to tftoq«*( «rf^ Al JyAfli«:ffloo 9nc« ato«t ovMa Mtf t« XXA 

^•911 to »tiii» Mltf xdf fiM<i«lc Xwrft«»«Xqt|0B jNm tv«Mt«lf» «1 tft^^am 

■<«»9 tXif t* nAX9«nXq3c« Mir nsfla ^•nel»»/j»i<>« /AXt»»<c* » 'to 3«i/TtWi 

aU!«er cdf Atl^ irtdl 000, 3>| ft4# #JUC9 nS^atsiW tfneqaKt mTT .t«9aMi •* 

tnt/t taunt a »nM«#{f sftnod ^#*sc«tfx f i^txv^ \o M^^rxvq »ftio4K^i #l<^ lot 

ftlft huM vwimtty » BA MM»£dbiencq ton mjtw iOiMait^^. ,%n9tfiiuat«»ti «fil 

«ff? to IstiY «i «!>«AtlOqKl 0» to O^B llHIWt tWfJ 1^1 C&«Jlif fli *»«/ ?»rf* 

»©Xir»fc w©- ?«rf* ift!RO<rttfq oltiftflkT" A o# Bit«t «ft *rerr9* »t *ii«»M»«*q^ 

•ftil not is^ fnffootttt X«1»«m|« « «1 fitairt «jff 9i*io«Xq to flifjHRt«n ttf 

iwf bi& si{f9 t«i{7 ittTooim ifttAO 9*£aA<f oiifir siiXtnottsiNi to ••o<rtiiif 

Jtoqrx LwrHM^Xu-nm «iff .BoXJ-wq: md9 to ^Xtftiftoft«X«rc «» egOAflB 

i>i^t9tvtq 0D<J,8A>!St j» ^loffoirid^oq «* 18rIw<»XXji »«iro»6 « Bofertoiwiooiin 

jriBoq-^B ailj^ to #i/o %ii!l«X8 »«<«:* loriiro dflv «>jw ysfg «X<f«TB(| (iiJaXo 

t»int 9At taSflM wtfffsoooA oXXtfv^t to ttttibu^ mit tfJl\f ^smi€ %dt %€ od»B 

,(©!5«X .»»«*S .vof ,£XI ,.0o» fo Vea .f/Kf ,SS ,qE«fo) l-^ o^lftAqnoO 

^eii Xmq adtodf oii^ to iovx««n «ift #«£9 ,f{i«leltiu««rX oel alxt^ tl ftOK 



flier9Aft«r th«re Intenmneiil tvo t-nast and pr«f«rrea elalm- 
ftiits wb0«« el&iia« b«S. l»»«n aLlov«d hj thse court ^ naffi@ly» Ttm fruet 
Cenpany of Ohle&co* fiueeeesor in truet u»d<^r a certain truet «^>««- 
»entf aaa Mv«s»d B«rk«on, successsor tru!?tee under &nather trust 
iMgr»es«at. In the &4ier««f ttllovlng th«lr elaiMS it ■w&§ presided 
that th»ie wsr* to toe pal* prior to 'Ki© el&lKis of ^l\ other oiE^4it©re, 
ttxeept these &n & parity, and ale© gave them £ lien on ths deposit 
n&d« itlth tb© iiiU<lltor of Public Accounts, 

t.he»e elalmante fllert objections to the ©apter's report, 
whl©h were overrules; the^e objeetione urg»d that the relationship 
between petitioner and the bank vtB that of a ereditor and debtor. 
Subsequently the receiver and these olaiaanti- filed farther ob- 
Jeotlone; the ohaneellor overruled thete objeetlone and exemptions 
8Xoept In eertala particulars. 

The decree found that there eould be no question from the 
tvtdenoe that petitioner* • #46,000 was left with the tms^ for the 
aole purpose of purehaslng liberty boncle by the president for tiie 
benefit of petitioner; that an nxpr^e^ parol trust %ae oreated, and 
petitioner was allowed a preferred olaln, payable '*| .yo rata with 
other prefezv>ed elalas In the same manner. " fhe decree then found 
that such preference vote limited to eash on hand and eaSh due froa 
banks at the eloslnir of the bandc, and also held that petitioner was 
not entitled to the benefit of ^e deposit vlth the Auditor of 
l^ublio Aoeounte as petitioner's trust agreeaient was an oral agree- 
isent and not e<iuivalent to a deed. We are of the opinion the staster 
and eh&noellor vers oorreet in holding that the erldenee shoved the 
creation of a trust funA of ^45,000, left with the bank for a 
specifically desig^nated purpose. 

^** ^'gO'E^lt V. Faraers '^-^tate Bank . 2.38 111. 154, 157, It was 
held that there ai^ two kinds of bank deposits] special and g«nex^. 
As a rule when a general deposit is made the bank becomes the debtor 
of the depositor to the extent of the deposit, but >4i«re money is 
deposited to be used for a sp^olfisally designated purpose it is a 



f lfto/j«& 9t» no ii«iX • ««f$$ tiira^ 9tfs M« ,t^^XJ*cr » *t* •<»Of!t f cr«9X« 

,lnoft»n f •n«v*^iiiw »Mfy o» »90i;#»«ttfo Mlf^ atfiUMRicIo •••iff 

^a* Boni HPiJ^'^uf: an '9«r &XMV& •» i :i-^-,o tiul9 fcllllO^ %9%91l^ Witt 

#rf» lot rir»ftl»©^ i»rf{r x<^ i»6«orf X*t»cflX snlf»if»^&^ td ••o<rxifq aXo* 

ff*** *t»'i 53<i* «X<fjit«<r ,i»i«X« &«rr«l#i^ • 6»>v«Ils »«« fttoittf^ 

Moit ©cfe fft»*» bnA ft««I «© *!»«• ©# iNittttlX 9J(» i»oAn«t«Tqt <*»»» »*<It 

»«>* t»fiol^2Jaq ?«*!* fef(Mf oalA f>am ^^mt tit lr<a *l>X»0"fo f^ *» «ijfa«rf 

t« Yod^X&vi^ «rf# itriw fltoq»B •!» to titwawi *^ of j^X»X;rfl9 ten 

»«««<|ii lint* t(« ■«« t««a9^<s$s ftnt ••i^«l*W»<3[ »« ttnofeodA olXtffft 

iitfam *dt Mtntqb •!!# to •«r« *W .^«B • ot iaalnriupw *«i fta* »fl«« 

• tot iCftfttf AdSf sftflv »t»X «0©0,«*4 to toon #«««» * to JieXtArto 

.eeoqntwq 6«JAn^l«!«5 tXX«3itfo»qi 
aj»«? »1 »T5X ,♦«« .fix een . ^tiigg. »^»»-'^ »rr^BWtftt .v <ii:a»»^ nl 
.XanentB ^«« I«l»«^ t»«i<io<!r«ft Jteitf to tftnii ««rt »^« mtit t»e» bl9d 

el t*«e« t^sii^ *«^ ,»liOft«ft oi» t» #«»#»« *«l* ©# ^otla««l«& iU« to 



-8- 

sptei&l t«p©«lt »a4 tile j»«lati©iisM.|> of debtor and creditor d©#g not ■ 
exist, this dl0tlfl.etloti has be«n followed la Feoale v. Bn.teg. 361 
111, 439; B&iftr V. Q ' Coim0ll . 36S 111, 208, &M other eag«s e-ited, 
CAMt eltftd by opposing counsel, like Peoiple v. fiiracr» 3tAtg B&nk . 
, fy8>3pit . . aaS Feoplg ▼. state Bftttfc ©f M:ay%;oQ4. 564 111, &19, 026, are 
not la opposition, r« In tbose cases the r«eoz^ diselesta no agr««- 
B«at vlmteTer that the fund® ehould be used for any p&rtioul&r pur-> 
P<»a«. It oan hardly be olaised tliat tbe real estate iieSurltiee 
originally purehased for petitioner's account and retained for safe 
keeping in the po^^seeaion of the bank, established tha relation of 
debtor and creditor. Bearing this in aind, no eubeequent cbang,e in 
form of these eeouritiee or bookkeeping accounts with referenee there- 
to changed ite eeeential traneaotion ae the erestion of a trui^t. 

JJo partieular fora of worde is neoeseary to ereate a trust. 
Any expressions wbieb ehov olearljr the intention to er^^ate & truet 
will laave that effect. Payee v. I^nretif 110 111. App. 36; Feog l g , v, 
Cairt>"Aiex&nd.ey County BanJs.. 282 111, 'App, 343, 351; ji-ittaeler v. 
] ^»ili<g9netein . 308 111. 434, and otb«r oases. Ueymann was oontiau- 
ouely deceiving petitioner for the pur^oee of • throwing hla off tbe 
traek* in t^e purchase of liberty bonde and Heynana*? purpose was to 
keep the H6,QQ0 fund as part of the aeoets of the bank, latere is 
point in the suggestion by petitioner's eounstel that the reoeiver 
should not take the position in support of ileyaiann'e deceitful con- 
duct by arguing af,ainet the return of petitioner' «; money to hia. 

It ie unnecessary to consent upon the large number of oases 
cited by diligent counsel for all pertles. Petitioner's elaim rests 
upon the undisputed fact that the ),46,000 left with the bank was to 
be held by it, Just as it had held petitioner's securities, and to 
be used for the specific purpose of purchasing liberty bonds. 

Reduced to its eiaplest elei^entt we have the picture of 
an illiterate, ailing customer of a bank, trusting its offloera to 
carry out hie ^specific wishes eonoernin^ a certain fund intrusted to 
their e«re« and a bank president who, while pretending to the cuetoser 



^S''* ■•»^*S .* .?ia.. II«1 nftMf tAil aoll9ai^i/A •lifT .9«lxt 

«jHl^i:i» 8»8«9 i;-ii'AJr© o/u* ^(j;,..ri; .IXX S»S .^J^im»S*9 .v IB 1*9 iBB* ,XII 

idltffitl f W^ i^rffin^H ,v ftXgOfti taUX «X»afl«o9 aoXteqao \fl( frttf Xft smaO 

9%M ^9m «exa ,xxi ♦ss jjtsis^^ ' "" '*■ ' ."^ 'ti '^ t -t^^of^ &«* «'ii:ESsa 

di- 
al ft^euuto iira»uptndus oo ^alm al nl4$ ]|ftX*iA99 •lofib*^* bti» ^Qt4»t 

tatrs:^ A »^ja#ii<> of a^X^jsafiiX axi^ ^XiJiaXo vwiM dtHbg aavXtaanC: 
♦▼ •1<3^*1 l«5 ."^'^ »XXI dXX *»aw;a^ .▼ fty^#a .t«flla **f» avari XXlw 
'"^ s&„.;»»^ f,-^.ft U95 «5^ .<£<|& .XXX gas .jUifg T?«ue3 i»f»g#x»XA-oTUP 

•lif tto iilf( "iiRlwoailt* t9 aao-ni^S m<' itt «K«ii«X#Xt«q ytirXattafi tXa»« 

e^ «tx 'oiiAtfioK Ia* ab«4>cf ^(I'xatftX le aattito-it/q ad} ni **iio«*i; 

eX rs^tf? •Jliwd jariir >o af asa* aucU to $1^ n* bnu'^ s «ia«a( 

'xevXa^ai 9sit tMi Xaafrif09 «*<faiieX9X;ra<i t^ iiai;lttaBaiva aii^ ai tnJtet^ 
•0oa Xi^t^Xaaftft e'cuu^v le^^q^ aX tiol^ia^q ai& ajU(r ^ok MttOutCa 

,»JLj!i &i \9ti6m a'tecoiJTi^raxil to n%a}vs, artiT J^buXa;^ 3i3lu|i«(« Xtf {fOMft 

»«9«o te %^Bva •s'saX aiiy noqu fraaaLtsoo o^ vxaaaaooniiu ei ;?I 

•t9ir% aX&Xo s'-sfnioiiTl^a'* ,«aXf«iA oo itf^Ub xd b»SJto 

q9 mm :tA»4 miS tiflv ttfX 090*9^^ acd ^iul^ ^OAt ^^KtcrqaXfiyQtf act} 0«k^ 

n$ Nm taeX^inuFoaa aWacbaltilaic ftXail bttfi $l,^i atf 

.eofl«*tf ii}rta<riX %Kl*»ii9VLuq t« »> '.? ■*«'! avmm arf 

>o arsAi^Tdi^r (Mar . aviMi aw a^eaoiaXa }9»ii^X« »H oi h'i^mfi>9B 

ei M^s^itto a}i iai#aB«3tl «Jto«<f * t.o.vx»«©*9WC iiaiX« ,«*A*t«*lXXi ii# 

o# J&^^sti'x^cti Mtft flXA^'xao a i^ltt%9vm99 a«iitaXv ^XtiDai^a aXjf }|fo v^rioa 



to Ao tt« dlr^etftd, attsaspted, tsy feftu^lng ^eehanles, t© dlYetpt tfee 
eafltCMMr^K optolai fu«a iat© Vm genernl &8s«ts of th# teawk witl^^jut 
tkM ottctdmer** knovl«dg«t aiul oontrarjir to Ms dir«!Otione. Iidthlng 
ttm bftiik migjbtt do oeuld Aaetroy th^ r«le.tlo&aliip of trusts® and 
b«B«fiolftry without tlu» eonaent of th@ l>«ti«ifl@isfy. 

#» auNi of the oplQlon the eli&ne®ll©r «i«r«d In not aireetlng 
payiMnt ©f petitioner** preferred olatlsi In priority to general 
elalma. Ae petitioner* e #45,000 was tatentionally ueed tay the Mf^ 
preeldeat to fttt(jpB«at the essete of ttee ItoiUE >^ben it ^mn in fln&neial 
difficult less, and aid not u»® this fund for tlae epeolfie purpose for 
vMeh it was delivered to the h&ni., plaintiff le entitled to resort 
to the general sace of as«iete for the return of his sM»ney beeauee 
that general mae:!! was inrproperly aagnented ^j the uee the president 
a&de of petitioner's property. People v, Batee. 561 111. 43©i 
Pe<?ple V. g | |ica^9 BanJte of Coaa^ree , ?;75 111. ^^p. SQ# I'eq'PXe v. 
Ridgely''Farmera 3tfete aanfc . 281 111, App, 292', Balar v. o * Connell, . 
284 111, App, 331 J and I'eople v, Xllinoie Bank & Trust Oo .. 290 111. 
%p, 621. St ate, ex y;e| ^ , ^^ gereneen v, Farssers .^^tate a&nk . 121 Meb, 
&S2, oontalne « eonsprehensire dlsouaeion of the rule, and eayel 
**Cieneral depositors are not entitled to the fruits of the bank's 
betrayal of trust. ♦♦ fim dootrine requiring the l^nefielary of a 
trust to trwoe his trust fonde into Boae «peciflo asset or property 
in the eetate of the truetee or in the hand« of hie receiver at a 
oondition of reolalning thee did not originate in any m>ral 
philosophy or in any sout^ prinoiple of e^ity Jarlsprudene®. fh® 
dftfenee of that doctrine laeke eogeat reaeone and Involves a resort 
to opinione reiterating initial fallaeles, ^** In equity the de- 
poeitore do not have a valid olaim for the amount of these tintet 
funds, equitably they belong to intervener and the distriot court 
wleely ordered the receiver to pay them in full. " Many other de- 
eielone from other etates might be cited to the same effect. 

The epeeial eewmiisslOBer held that plaintiff, being the 
beneficiary under a valid ©xpreee trust of personal property, ie 



<»fft t ^Kiutf ccT ^b9icsK9SSM ^bmtntnlk it« aA of 

^lt»«tl.ft ton cS &*n[t» loIlAenAiio «if^ noletqc tAt le avi e 

besu xX^Aaoitffl«#0l tMr C *n^tt9ttt$9q tA .aelAlo 

Ift/(»Afi«ii?t ni «flv tl flfldir ]Iiu»cr fit to afoaaa ad^ }rroiistfii o7 inoJbloovq 

«oi oaotrxuq oitloaqa »AS ntot totft alK ^a bUt An* ,aol^XuoitlJtA 

^■icR«n: o7 bwiHitf nt 'IttfalMt^ ^tnad «lf of AonaviJCaift a«v ifi /(eiiftr 

stiMOMf x«>n<M sirf to «tL'ton fnii nol a^ansA to aaoa XA«soiiai oifl «r 

fr«&ia»Y(; arif 000 ftrff tcf &a#iiMq|»4 xXnaqo^qal umw sajus logouts tAd}^ 

jt«* .1X1 Xas .9»»»ft .V aXyroa*^ .X^»qo*xq a«na<fOiJit»q to a^iw 

.V al<T08^ ;«• .qc(i^ .XXT 8T9 .oyiowoD to Mmt ^^oXtfO .v j^SSSl 

tl": *' Tt«X»« isw ,«M*" .irt XfiS .ifuKi »>fl?e anaim-s.TJaa&iK 

.jrn OS: -aiofllixi .▼ aXooo't Sm» JXSC . ^s 

.^oM i ^*ag^ a-tsaru^ .v notnyio^'i^ .Xa'x xa .t»a;r£ . . .4A 

:ax£>% -A^ ,9lirir niU to fioiaauoaXb aTlanMianqtioe a nnluaao- 

s*aUuH9r adl to atitnt ^lit 09 fttX^l^nt toa am* aietlae<r9fe Xn'ion^ - 

a to T-xftioitaisarf 9tit %RtiXttpw mntnfob »f:' * * . Ui«* to XAXjav^Otf 

X^t^qoTL*^ "SO JaaiiB oltiooqa aiaoa ©tni aAnirt 3i<i^i.j (-.id ooanl o^ tairx^ 

a aa «t9irii»eanc aiif to nbojui %& al no adfscRtf mSS to aiTA^ao oif9 nl 

XMoa XBA ffi •fjini^'xe too btb m*af ^tmtMli>^ to nottllinoo 

#dT .aonoibtnqai'Si/t ^Jlupa to ^Xqlonliq baaen x«« «i ^o XrfqoaoXiii^ 

tncufn r- •-"«^'*yfii ftwa anoa^at 9n<»soo ajfoof oalttoefs #a<W to oanata* 

-at .. v^Xupo «I ^* .aaiOiiIX«t lAlttnl iiiit$»i9il»% enoXiiiqo c$ 

7tttni »aai» to tntjomm 9tiS -sot «l*Xo JbXXav m vtm^ f^a aft snoJiaoq 

,^D?.tt9 aaiff- ■ ic. i'c'^-tiw «»?8;J'« .tffrfyc 

'attltmlq tatf* ftloif T»«0l»t/ffBDO» r»i.3»<ia »ifT 



•7«» 

•atltl«d t® t^e ,prot«etl©n ©f the d«|!>o8lt malie toy tlm tfiisst«e with 
th« ^dlt©r of i^ablle ivoccmnts uMep ^e Tpuet Coss^SLaiefe Aot. *?M 
elianeellor sugtaiaea exeeptione t© this finding and h«ld that 
petitioner w&e not entitled to tfelis i^rot«etlon« restlnf hie ««- 
olslon upon th« faet that tli« expr«»s trust herein was ©stablished 
by p&jrol evld«n«« and not by an Instrusa^nt In writing. If the ex- 
press trust is e«tablleh«d by parol It Is difficult t© ««© wh^ It 
»b©ttld set ht«v« «<ittal potency with an «xprepi truist ««tablished by 
ft writing, the only diffei^no« relates to the evldenoe of th« f&et 
of th« trust. It would eepm sufflelent to establish thl« by parol 
vuoloss ther« le eoanthlni^ In th« statute tdsleh disttualiflae sueh an 
^x^re^B tru«t so established. 

The trust Coa^anlts Aet (ohap. .152, par. SS7 et •«e,, 111, 
R«7, State, 1939), vaa flr«t passtd In ld87; at the «a»« ««i«ilon a 
naw banking law was pasted. (31, Chap. 10-1/2, Smith-Hurd itats, 1939.) 
this provided that banking eorporatlon* wert authorised to *aeo«pt 
and execute trusts." The act plaeed no limitation upon the kindc: of 
trust* t^loh banK« oould aoeept and execute, but the ««e of th« 
word "accept** Indicates a voluntary aecunptlon of an obligation and 
not thoee resultant and oonetruetlva truete arlclng by e^eration of 
law. At ^at time the etatutes eeened to bar corpora tlone froa 
acting ae trueteee, or as exeoutore, oonservatore, grantees In deeds 
and trueteee In real eetate under wille. ^^ee 14A Corpus Juris 293, 
for a statement of the law at that tise, the author fiaying tiriat 
where there 1« ae statutory repeal the old rule ie etill followed, 
and statutee providing for the appolnt^nt of pereons to eueh 
positions of truet are eonetrued to apply to real and not to 
artificial persons. It therefore beoase necessairy. In order that 
corporations might be appointed as executors, trustees of real 
estate, etc, that a statute be passed p^erwlttlng this and giving 
such corporations equal authority ae In the ease of the appolntiaent 
of a natural person. Out of this situation grew the trust Conpaniee 
Aet of 18S7, AS Its title indicates, it Is an act (1) to provide 



9f ^mla^^ ■■•■■'■ ^ 

iMiii Sil& ^a«>iJ(4«i»X« &i0alA4kiHt 'iOilttOAA^d 

-«& 9jtil leii^tt >i<2 •i«2J o^ AaXfiSfrtft ion sdw ivnei^llMi 

ii£ f{9£r» 9«illXAit;t>iiZ& rtoXrlv »;}<itf>)}f ariar nl ||iBJbil««ot ai rxaifif aaftlfu; 

Jb»dfiiX<f4^a« ea faint aaoiqxt 

. o9« f» ves .'2*<^ ,c^ . vAilo) 7oA a»Xiu»<|iioO rajrsT adf 

^ ., .^«9aa aau^a edf ta t?S6X fiX baaa^q tatXl a«w ,(9eeX ,»^ai. .van 

C'X .a^Tii^iii^ btun'^taimS (SV-^^ .qAffwi (X(i).&MaAq amr vaX ^liawd van 

fq»««il* ol bp^l-vuiitts^ aaav aAOltA's&qfioo st^Xioatf taii} bal^Xronq slifl 

Ja tibtiXi mrtt MK{tf nof :i<r.* ^c IX OH A«««Xq fo« mn * .atavKt atvoaxa Aiu 

r aaif flil? , /Maaxa Aa« 9q<9eo« jl^X«90 aMiutf 4aXtfv ataoot 

htu a^ls&^Xldie fiA to ctoXfqiRtfaaji %i»$rm1§iw « ■•tMiJtal ''tqttMi'' Mcv 

to floi?A<xa<j:Q \d ^aXftX'u ataint oYlttDntaAoo tAa ttuitXuasii aaoi^ ton 

Bxnt s^oXtA'x otspH^Q %»d Q^ £>»a»»a aatufala tJtU aciX^r }ai£r ^A .vaC 

£fi>aaJb iti vaatjttAts «aiof "TTi^^^^es «bio^j/99x« ajt «xo ^aaafaint a« ]|oX#Ai 

,ft<^ aXrti'^ «&^oO «^x . iXiw t^bau 9t»i%9 iMm si B^futt bam 

tj^ ify* 4/19 ^ai»X^ tAd,i ^* vaX tJCt t« ta<»«»#afa 4 10I 

,£i9woXXol: IXil^a ? '>X« aifi XA«qa<s pcoft/iTatn oji aX anaifir Viihi 

doun nt anoai^q la lae tdf net ^nX^Xvcxq aa^ftttfata ftii« 

of iUto'S «? ;t Jbaijnieiioa o-ua i^int to aiioXfXaoq 

if^Diti^ t»^' v^Att«ao«i aiSAi^scf <r(Otoi«r(if . loaioq ltil9t\kt%M 

Xjsin to «a«?«f/«# ,a'i tA Jb»«r«XoqqA ^ aiioX;r«%«qnK9t 

-gttltt^ fonM ttXAi -^mlitlofttKi fianajaq acf •9utat* » smds -}«/•• 

tti9iiittiJi0fi^,s mtt to •«»<> •ctl llX ■« t^X20£itt;j» X£i^9 anoilA^oqioo rlfi0« 

aaXa«<pift9 «rain7 licit vantji aoXt«vtX« aX|fl '; .D&a<K9q JUnaf^a n to 

tt&ivo^a 0i ill to« OA aX tX .aotAolAftX aliTXt atX bA .t«8X to tM 



for the aimlnlBtration of trusts by trust ooss$>&nl@s, a.o4 (8) t© 
rvgalate th« adalniatr&tioa of trust© by trust $o!gf.ftnl««, fh* 
lMU)l:lnc AOt pa«s«S s,t the ssm$t time had for ite purpos« tl}« re%oT«l 
of tk€ rsstrictiona; on the uppolnttseat @f eorporatlone »• trustees. 
ISy seetloQ 1 of tbe trust Qoa^imi«8 Aet It is j»rovid«d that any 
oorpor&tldfi lnoo2T<^^ftt«d undsr ^« g«n«r&l eorporatloa lawe *a«7 IWf 
appointed atelgast or trusts© Iqr de«d, and executor, or tru«t«e by 
vill, ana smofe ap^intsent shall be of llk» foroe as In esse ef 
appol«taent of a natural |>«*»'^ '*«», •• 

It should be 4. ' '*** 4at this ie tha oaly plae« In th« 
trust Coapaalea Aet ^Ich u««8 th« word* "trustee by d©ed, and 
e3(»eutor» or trustee by will, * It l« ba«$«d upon t3ie pr«s«nc« of 
th«ee vords In the aet that the oonelueion Is diTmm that only sueh 
exi>r«s8 truete as are erected by an ln«ttrument In writing ean ln<» 
voke the protection of the Trust Companlfts Ast, fee are of the 
opinion this Is a mlelnterpz^tatlon. 

Section 6 of the aot provides for a deposit f^lth the 
Auditor of Publle Aeeounts for the benefit of creditors, fhls has 
been aaended several tlaes, and In 19S9 It was asiended so as to 
llodt the corporation fros aoeeptlng and executing "any trust oon- 
eemlng property* without oostplylng vlth the provisions of this act. 
fhie lan^age would sees to Indicate a leglsl&tlve intention not 
to Halt the regulatory sections of the act to the express tjnaets 
referred to as ereeted by de*d or by will. ^ reaeonabl© oonstructlon 
of the Trust Goapanlee A«t Is that It applies lt» refulatlve pro- 
visions to all trusts y^leh eorporatlont are authorl:eed to aooept 
and exeoute. 'luoh a oons^trtictlon wmtld seea to be based upon eomnon 
sense and fair dealing. In I.n re National Baafe of ctt^fw^ . 27^ 111. 
Ap^, 545, it was i»ld that a trust coapany'e deposit vlth the 
Auditor of Publle Aeeounts was for the protection of a beneficiary 
under a vrltlng not under seal. In Jon^ b v. Lloyds 11? Ill, 597, & 
trust In real estate was upheld although the only evidence of the 
oreatlon of the trust was a pleading In a prior suit, uoh pleading 



ft<(T .iB«Iii»<p«c »ftir9} ^ ttt»tni nttJtfilttbit im(9 t#iilui«<i 

l6yo««n; *nt <»«oq^0<l »tl 'i:e1 AjRtf tmit •taiia vi!^ 7« fttBttJtq $9>m ^ntiOMii 
.{•dttin^ s« «r!Ol^ vtc<rz<99 to 9tt9mftil9^qM ^t no •ntilSitl'iStw 9tSi to 

to MM0 Hi 9M ooniot 0^tX to otf ttAtfo fiift«tAioqq« i^iM Aaa «IUhr 

■^ .4#^^«q luTUf AH M to #A0«^nio<3q<l 

tmm (ftood t<f 9«^9crt^* tMov «itft s«tir il»IAr 9oA %^tnA<jmoO tntnf 

to oMtsartq «ffit noqu Aoootf ti fl * ;XlJv xd •t%int ta tioifvooxo 

i!{o»e %tao itAift ffuiS'irt fti RoiotfJroftoi^ 9d$ f»dt iou •dt mt obiov oooiJV 

oiS# to ^ ^& fofju^tavS tafl<it Mit to nol^ooiTo^'^ »x{# •:<ot 

.jiGifii#»^q«offrlol« « «i ^tiO aclaiq^ 

aril si^ri'^ Jlsojafi A Tot solMvortq *0i> orf^ to 8 iiolfoo^ 

84ii tlfff «ito^li^«^ to I^lt«n0«f ftH^ net e^/ufoo&A oiXcfsr^ to 'xo^tbu/k 

ol" •< o« ^o&eotfo ««?<r ^1 <KtOX nl itoA ,o««if Xjrx«troo i&o&nofui nOo<f 

■»flOd taiT^t t^«" ^i9v9»x« A(XA 9ai^<;00d4 «ont floilaioq^oo 9di ttmtl 

*?o« «tf!t to miiialvonq aacfj it*i*r %ttlxtq*i&Q tuedtt^ ^xtH^qt/iq, ^laiakoii 

toft ttetfitvSBt '»ttf*InJ^Mt M •iB&lSiat oX «•<»» ftXiraw o^av^jiJt tijtt 

a^ajuinr aaot^ixo tnii o> foa •itJ' to tnoltooa t^o^a/tfioi odE^ Unit o# 

ff9l3t9ifi^aifoo #X<fAneajKO«f A .IXIv x4 no X>A«i& ftf J&otAOiLO 04 oJf ^onnston 

-«nq »vlX«X«s«n mtt nfitlq-^.a fl JArf* aX tmk oo/jn -.-«.-.; j-^wnT •/(# til 

XqoooA o^ fi«sX*so£l#fflt Oaii anoifflfsotfteo Aoldw mj ^.- j.lji (ot afioXair 

n«>«f««»o fioqu ft«a«tf ocf otr «»)9fi i^'foc - n^xioin^srtoo « ifoi^ ••fvodxo bajl' 

.XXt STS . j8viit^y o tk. tm^. .: jf n^ '' ,tni£»ttb tlt^ &««' o«'«&'' 

XijtXoitoniN^ a to floi^oAfo^ *i» *i«Jt aiwr ii?r- -iXirft^f t** tofXJii»' 

3 ,1^a .XXX tXX .ft'^oX^I .t ^ j&get., ffl .Xji-:'^.. :. ftm ^' xttbau 

•^ritf to »tJW^felv» ^Xbo «rf» its^HOiftXil 0X#rf«?1il »»w »J^«*»« ! :t»«^' 



-9- 

«&« obviously not & <l©«d. In '^mlth v, Covrnty e f Leg&n. :aS4 111. 163, 
it ¥&B held that la oonftz^lng a statute the iateatloa is tke oon- 
tJTOlllng factor, and In Heyne v. Banjeoh , 364 111, 467, It le a&ld 
that in oonstr^iing a statute »uoh eonetruotlon should b« avoidAd 
^Ktiieh r««ult« m gra&t Inconvenience or absurs cons«qu9noee unl«s« 
%h)t ffl«anlng ©f tb« legislature be so plain and m&nlf#et that aveld- 
anoe is impossible, As pointed out in tlie brief for petitioner, 
if only express tru«tte created by deed or by vill eo®e under the 
proteetion of the Trust C€®pa'7ies Act, there would be withheld 
from its benefits written trusts involving real eetate where no 
seal is affixed to the writing, trusts of personal property ©vi- 
denced hy writings not under seal, and trusits like thPt In the in- 
stant case, created by conversations, facts and oirouasKtaneee. 

Oaeep cited in opposition do not squarely meet the pre- 
sent point, although expressions may be found in soae of the opinions 
indicating that the creation of the trust mu«t be by soiae instrument 
in writing. In S'-eople v, Cody frust. Gy , , 894 111, App. 542, tSm 
point was vhether there irae an express trust or a txHiet created by 
operation of lav, including resulting and eonf»tructive trusts, th« 
eotirt decided that the trust there under consideration vtkti the latter 
Icind and not, therefore, under the Trust Companies ^^t. A «ioil»r 
question was involved in people v. Ohioag-o oank of ■y oaa teyoe. £96 
III, App, 4©7, where it was held that the evidence, although in 
vrlting, vas not sufficient to create a truet. Th&t case went to 
the Supreme court (371 111. 596), where it was noted that the ap- 
pointment ef the hank ae trustee was actually under seal and there- 
fore, technically, a deed, but after an analysis of the writing the 
court affiraed the Judgvent of the Appellate court th&t It was not 
eufficient to create an express trust. 

We SJMS of the opinion the petitioner, being the beneficiary 
of an express trust, created in a legally valid ;si&nner and accepted 
by the bank, ie & trust creditor entitled to recourse agalnist the 
deposit with the Auditor of ?ublic ^'iocounts. 



«MX ,111 *fis . ^ naaoJi ^ lo ^ y^g .»»»* « Jon X^««'olv<^o Aisw 

•HOC mU ^' uilecoo ni itult MtMf aAM tl 

6i*8 aJt Jx i . ^fl* truKTe*! SfiiXX«vr 

«^/ovi» iiiiM) iMiA a1aX4( oa «<f ruf7«X«Xa*X Mir to snXfuiMi «iir 

^faoiJ^^^'i 'xot t»i«tf ML? Ai l«M l>»7iiX«q •> .•Xtfl««o<|«i •! •««• 

«^ It^blW «ir09 iXiv %■& tC ii—t> Xtf ^O^ArX* ttVITXt M»^<1]16 ^XAQ It 

&XMttf?i« od tilsfxni trfAi «}9' ' ' -mow YatrxY uij to a«X9«»9o^ 

00 wsMlw vlA^t* XA»t lAXrXvriw ^v^..^; umittiM vtltftflfcf tfi awvt 

-iv9 xttBqfi^tq X«fio«n»q to s^tin} ^IMiXfiiw eidtf o< JbaxittJi sX Xam 

—-'> "iy til i'^OJ 9il£ 9tku^t boM «Xji»« ninftoir #*■ %fi0it3Irw -^ ftotnoi^ 

~»^q iMtf f»MB tX«XA4fp« ion ^ neX^Xtoqqo aX JIWXo •••aQ 
9Roititii() «4| to Mi«« AX btiycl Atf XMR ftiioXtftviqx* if|MM«itXiR (tiiXoq tawi 
$Aa«iin(3^»f:l voe* xtf Ml sreoa ^tumt Mil to ««Xia*«9 siil fAii? ;iriXtfAoXbai 
»<i* ,S#S .q*iA .XXX *«S , . o3 ^lifil Tfe»U ,T » , tao<1 al .ajiX^Xtw nX 

-?/(: .iisr^i.'x.r $yX9otii7«iio9 Xtiui 8fiI7X««9a s'^^XadX ,waX to AoXlarcviio 

fts<^£ Mif «iry «roi^snL*5ia(xoo ^iJktv piidi ttitnS *af ta^ A«6Xo«Jt iT^urae 

•zcXXai . <° ••XflA^peO tnm't -«{$ itJutv ,n«t»Yft<iir ,;rofl Aa« J&jkX:! 

a'^* . ^^:- i-..;.:..i -v to ^Afci oa^ft - s^gCf tl flX J^wrXoTffX tfiw floX9«Mf|) 

ii»X« ,9»|itti^v« «£(« tiuia ftX«d •«« ^1 M«rf«r ^^^^ .qqA «XiX 

o^ itatv Miio ^AdT .^t»%f A a^Tavoo ot toAXttXttift foa saw i^aXd^Xiiv 

•^A 9d) tMAt b^Soti Mv 9i w«avi ^{99C ,111 XTS) ruwo •cMqtfd Mt 

-«n«;il &0A Xaa«» 'XAJMSii '^Xau^aa «aw ••tairxtf ba timd «i^ to tatBtRloq, 

9tif 3ai<r Xiir •Oi to ttX«^XACA HA lottA tad ^IboAft a ^xXXAsXadewf tV^ot 

#011 AAw Jrx ;ri«^^ tnuc& »3^*IX»q^ *ii^ to ^flAAf^fiw^ Uit fioaraXttA Stac^ 

,$nsnt 8«»it9» AA *^M«n» oi tAoXoXttiMi 
VS4XoXt«fl«<i »^ ;i|iil^ lYX^A^ Aii^ aoXAlgo «Jitf to oru 9/r 

£«;^qM&A £»iiA iwtttisfs dXXAT ^XXas^X a nX iiBtm^9 tfaviS «ao^qx9 iia to 
kSS $*MlKjiA i»tt'aioooi «yi b9l$tte9 lotl&^no t*tn$ a sX (ifiocf o<tf \4 

■ ■ ■ ■ -^b 



-10- 

for the foregoing r«&«ong we hold tlmt tM» ch&nceller 
ji^uld net hev$ suist&lned th« •xeeptlcns to the m&a1;«r'« &ni 
epeolal e©Kaigelen«!r'e report, and that in so doing reverffitel© error 
««.• eoassitted, 1fh« S«er«e is therefore pi^Ttarem^ and the cause 
rta*nA«d vlth directionn to ent^r & deore« in as^ord&nee with tbm 
irecoiBJaendAtioni of th« »aet«r and his supplemental r«p©rt. 

lfftt4B3Mttt P.J,, eonoure. 
O'Connor, J., diseentingJ 

In »y opinion th« Trust C^mpmnj het i» in n© imy ftppllcable 
to th© facts in the instant ca««. '*lust Aef«n<SAnt bank did was not 
doiHi by virtue of that aet. 



-01- 
ban a*ff»#«jw •49 «jr fiioi#<saftx« i^df hmntmfM •vMf ton ]Mtf«ift 

iftJI 

'■:j)nlla»tiiiA , .X> ,<xeiiJio0'0 
»i:dAOlIs$q« XB« oa nl ai #6A tM<:|Kot) ttirvT M£r noijiiqo t" ^l 

i9a ««er fcl& :ln«(f tfu£>«i«t1«>£ :^4U^•' .mao 9is«f«(il •!!# ni stojil «il;r o^ 



40983 

SListf jroiiBAK, »\^inor, h^ m^cm J 

JOMJAS, Ills f&thj^ Mja rjs^t frl«nd,/ 

*./ I f ^^\ I 

I 






K4ILWAX ^xrns^i *ii--HCy, \nfeoiy V^^l 

•^ »pp.n««. 805 I. A. 491' 

Ma. jusfics K«stfaax ijeutcrke tbi ofikioi of fm comf. 

Plaintiff, « minor, brought «!* t>y JiIb father, olAlalnf 
t^t be 6tt8t«.ln«d lnjurl«« l^ r«a«oa of the iwgllp^nt op«»rAtion of 
d«f«n€«nt*e trailer truek which eaaaad a oollialon betvean It and th« 
rord autoiBdblle vtaleh plaintiff was driving; upon trial by tha oourt 
plaintiff was awarded daoAgas of 186 froa wbloh d«f9ndant appaal«. 

The aooldant faap|>«naa about 4 o*aloek on th« fmmXng of 
January 21, 1959; Waa Ford oar driven by plaintiff waa prootadlng 
north on Canal ctr«et; l^a truok was going «outh on Oanal; at a 
point about 100 feot north of tha Into r««ot Ion of aoo«evelt road 
(whleh runs «a«t and watt) with Canal 8tiN»«t, ttw truotc turnad aaet 
Into a drlvaway «^leh run* Into the Chleafo, Burlington 4 ^ulney 
Bailroad tarseln&l; ae tha truok turnad Into thl» drlvavay It was 
atruok by plaintiff* ford ear; the point of l»paot wa» batwaan 7 
and 3 fa«t watt of l&a «a«t ourb of Canal etre«t, vlth tha truok 
haadad into tha drlvaimy and about 10 f««t beyond tha aaet ourb. 
Plaintiff hae not appaajpod In this oourt in support of thl» Jtt<%nant. 

nalntlff teetiflad ha wae traveling about 15 to 30 dlae 
an hour and notloed dafandant'a truck vhan it was about 60 feet froa 
the driv#)way; that tha truck waa traveling between 25 and 30 allee 
an hour and plaintiff wae 25 f«>«t »outd» of the driveway when ha 
first »a¥ tha truok, Uefanaant arsuae that If i^lalntlff was driving 
a dlstanee of 26 feet at 13 mllen an hour and defendant's truck wa« 
golngr 26 to -30 Bile a an h^jr from a point go faet aortu of tha drive- 
way. It would have been Imposelbla for defendant* 9 truok to arrive 







'le^. A.I 5081 

'to i^lttt<sm lit so ir»«X«*« l> ^0«d« Aaat^ciwi 9«tAltft« MfT 

:anil>««9on'^ ««r mtnlJiXq V^ navftft -uitt Mo^ <ulir :tt6dX ,XS TMMUl 

■: TacaO no iitwoa soi^s o^M' Motnt tifCI ;f»<n#» la/uO ao iftioa 

iT«»««A le ooiroM^io^ai Mtf to dTioii tool OOX fvotfo ^iiioq 

;aii» £»inii9 ioml wii ^^^m%9% XjmuO ;tfXv (foow hmm ti«o msh xfoiifir} 

t«fli«^ * ao#;$«iXirvfi ,o»AOi/t3 oilt o^TmI aiun ifei<<w x^vorlift o MfoX 

atavf ;i ^MOTl^ aiiH otiii huemt jCoirst oift oa iXMiantot AoovXJUifi 

S' n»«w3«tf tsv fooqal to V0iO<E oiit tiMO Moi^ o'nitoljtXq xtf Jtow^i 

io«n^ oitl ^iv ,tff4n9B XoooS tc ^mo to«o oift to #tow toot • hBA 

.c^itio ivfto Mi^ ftaotcotf toot OX 9«o«r« ftfio iimwlnA otff otoi SoftAodl 

/^nss^f.ut %ta3 to r«oqq»a tfil tttfoo alxtt aX Jfto^iAoqt}* ton ajmI ttltnlAXH 

n-Hllm &S. 99 %t fiKKfo ig^ilsvjtnt ao« oif ftoltitsot ttltoJUX^ 

«io?t toot Od tuetfo iJiir ti; noihr jCovnt o'tajJ^ootoib Aoolton Ima *gu9d n» 

asilSB OS &4IO as noootoef ^tlvrmii •am t»int mta fAtlt ;^ovovirKJb oi<t 

•(f a^a^ \0MWtih oift to ittvoo toot 9S timr ttitnlAlq J&no tuKtd n» 

.nlvltb sjitf ^tltnloXq ti t«£lt tousvi tOAfeflOtoa .;(oirKt 909 ««• toilt 

OAvr jfoirxt »'tnj»J^a«toft tttM luoA n* ooilos 81 tA toot 9S to ooootoXA » 

rttti o47 to Aixon toot f^ frtlo^ « ffo^t nwoH no toXXa OS ot ait mUos 



jfct th« point ©f eelilel©!! prior to tJ5« tl®« plftintlff «m?«« tli«r«, 
Pl&lntiff <»*tf« he did not ««# t^« trueic until it ^s 4& f<^«t la 
front of hl«, fhe eourts hiiw said tli» la^ will iwt tol«rftt« th« 
ttbsttfdltjr ef ptrmlttlag one to taetlfy that h« looked &nd 4ld not 
t««, vh9&, If he h&A properly exercis**! his alclit, h» iroald hav# 
§••!». yyarubH v. Illlaoii fgrailnitl Co .. ."^^g Til. 350, 337. 

BiAimrd Kueller, th« <lrlver of flefendaat's trtiek, t«etifi«id 
It wfta ft 3-1/2 ton truek, lo&4«d em& hftadei for th« Chl«&g9, 
Bttrllngton 4 ^iney tersiliml; tlutt th« entr«no€ te this is on tlie 
•ast 8ld« of Ganftl fltr«et, ISO f«<»t north of ao^etvelt rofttS, and is 
alM»ut ^ foot trid«; that ho flret obstrrod tljo ferd driven tejr plain- 
tiff when it vac 150 fo«t south of ^'iooeevtlt; at about oo«-fourtli of 
a block boforo Baking: the turn into the drlvevay he put on the 
direotlonal arrow elgnal» indleating he v&» tumim; to th# left; 
that vhen he started to turn, th% Ford wae about 100 f«tt south of 
EooeoTelt road; l^e truok at thla tine wae going about 5 miles an 
hour; the front part of tho traetor vat oyer the east cidewalk vhen 
Vbo Pord ittniok it at a place about 16 to 18 feet fro® the front 
•nd. '^e vltneet eaid ho turned on the elgnal ll^ts about 60 feet 
before aa&ing the turn; that theee el^nal ll^te arc on the front 
fender®, 

Fred Fala testified that he waa eaployed in the poliee 
d«part»»nt of the Baltlaore & Ohio Hallroad; that upon the oeoaelon 
In question he wae walking south on the east side of Canal street; 
that he first eaw the ^ord when it was about 150 feet south of 
Hooeevelt; that it trae going between 50 and 55 Miles an hour. 

>ie are of the opinion that the finding of the oourt that 
defemlaat** driver of the truck wae {*niilty of negliienee and that 
plaintiff wee free froa oontrlbutory negllgenee *us airalnet the 
■anifest weight of the evidence. 

A faot of eonslderable iBportence In t«gting th« relia- 
bility of plaintiff ie that he testified he wan a »tudent at Crane 
Hifjh Sohool; that the aeeldent happened on fc-atarday »ona»ii that 



r 

.•nftitt IkVftvui 1\tSsiiMLq •mti tU 99 rUkJtxq, 0«i«iIXo» to tatoq fldf t« 

Hi f^X 9k •»» tt lltnu ioint tO »9« loo Mft Ml at** llifnMX^ 

Mfir •lfli»Xot ton Xliv wax «atf liiii« rr»ti nttwoe tilT .alxf to tuvtt 

9oa At& bOM J^MlooX «it »»iCt xlAt«»9 ot wio sMiiTilfln*^ lo VXft<uftttf« 

4vjer( !>X«9N «if |y<fi9l« oltf 6o«l«rxox» tXi^^^^a *^*^ ^ ^X ,flMfv «••• 

.W€ ,c>5i; .ill M( ..ft? JPtfflny^ IJtyfl^fA^ .▼ illlQ£. .«••» 

b9Xtl99»7 ^i90%f 9*iBMbH»\mb te tirviTb wO ,toXX*iiK j|«ndM 

,@^jiOj[j<!!:' 9da tot b9hmti bOB J^oftAoX «i(««n9 fi09 S\X«fi « ixv ;rx 

si toft ,&«»«a >X»vo«oo^ to i£K«« loot OiX ,too^»o XoiuiO to otXo luio 

-iiXoXti fef ^lovitfi Mo"^ odL} J^or^ootfo Irvit od foilt ;ftAX>f iroot 0» tfuetfo 

to il9iifot<-««o f^eotfa Sm ;fXoyooooA to dfyn* foot oax low ^X aoxiw ttit 

9i!i^ no fwq od ^(jnrovivli Oflf otfiiX irtsf odf 9Ii1:<mi ovoto^ iooXtf « 

liloX 3119 Of ^XfnMt ««« on saXfoailiiiX «XoiitXii wo^ru XoAoXfooxti^ 

to iffjuioa foot OOX fuotfo oow ^te*^ oi& ,sniff of ftofiuufe otf Aoifar fjulf 

ISO ooXiM e ftfo<fo yiXoii oav oaXf oXiif fo iloirtf ofif ;i^oot fXoroao«R 

e>9si<4 jfXoWO&XB f««» 0£[f 10V0 tow lOfOCtf tit to flOf[ fflO^t Orff \1U9ll 

jno^t Ofif ttomt Y»ot SX of «X fvetfo ooaX^i m tM ti tvtntn in9% ody 

t99Tt 09 tU9i% ttd^il XacsXo •dt a« bomi/f oii dX«o otoaflv o^T •£»ao 

^fiint o^f flo 910 afiJ^XX iMfi^ia ooodf iJiAt \nnut •03 snUtoc ovototf 

,?,-io£i#ol 

^^iioq oiff nX ftoYoXqso sow od foiif l>oXtXf«of «Xo% Aott 

aoxsftooe «£[f aoqu foiif \bx^vilLaSi eXdc - »TO«XfXaS o/ff to fnMvfiAqofi 

\i99%tn XoooO to o6X9 ftoo •£tf ao /ffifoo yaltlmu %*m oxt noXfaoup oi 

:o dftfoo foot oax ftire«ro oov fX aodv Mo'? o<(f woo f^ncXt «4 f«4t 

.i&ojl ail sff r(A 08 Aoovfod 90X09 a<w fX fadf tfXoyooooH 

: li^ fxtioo 0il:r to gnXJ&«Xt oi£f f«^ eoXaX^tO futf to oipi <9x 

.^iMif Sao ooAOi^XX^on to xiliia^ sow Xot^rif o<lf to fyrith a^faa&aotoft 

odf foaX«|^ sow <»oii»BXXBon taofucfX^fooo aott ooat oov ttXfoXiiX^ 

.oo/ioJ^Xto oiff to fxtsXou fsotXaaa 
-i^XXo^ oiff snXfasT nl oofiAfic^X «X«fiS%oi^X«0oo to fodt -• 
OAonD f« fn«»&i/f« a s«w wi £tXtXfB«? a£i fA(<f aX ttXfiiX«X<| tf tfXXXd 
tjuta i ic«Ai[0fA'i no AoftoooMf f0o£tXooo atff foiCf lltMA^ iteXM 



Im ivtts alnftt«ttn yesurs ^Id and. out of ftshool for tvo w««fct th«jr«&ft«r 
OR &eeo««t of this injux>l«»« r«oelir«4 by his. On tht action for «t n«w 
trial ?h« prlneipftl «.»« & te&e.her In ttot Opan« High School testi- 
fied thst h« wet not absi^nt frost «0hool t&r tvo w««kg &ftisr tilt 
aeoident; that the, eehool records «bow he was abeent on. January c?4, 
but vas pr««MRnt all other days of that v«ok. Th# oourt IstSloatsd 
tb&t b* ??ottia rflfd«ea tha Judgment to #60, Imt Mh#n defendant 
lndleat#d th&% an appeal w^ml^ 'bt ta:k«ii th« 9-aurt e&id he woult let 
tiaa Judgsant etaad at W^, 

For the reasons InAloattd we hold that this jud^gaent 
•hould not stand. It le therefore raT«r?ad and th« oaus* remanded. 

mwMBm m'i^ mmmm, 

Matohett, P.J.f aad O'Comior, J., ttMmur* 



1*irl«#%Mll iUbtmt owt •s'O') lo«Ul»« to 9«(i ftr(« Mo «iJk«t MBtnMltt •am Ml 
ft<etf •««?lit «iMv mrt 10^ looitoc IM^I fitoneTa ton •«« «tf t«/tt £«n 

immt^u^ tiitf !«<& AXftid tff B«tj»oi»al »ao««4K ftift lat 



miMmt mMm, 







) / /cifewif omm, 
> # i 1 



5 I, A. 491 



V 



u jS2?fie« Q»Go«M.oH 'QmhiWAm tms ofii-iios or th? mvm^ 



m&mA, a«a feis ehlldpen t© aet aside the iwlll of v>«0rgi»!i* fesefey 

«nd th« #j?oteaB« thereof, Th«y «!i&jpf;«S w«.at of taerat®! e^p&«ity »f 
the t#«t*trlx mi& !in4u^ influ<»neft ©a tlie p&rt of fi«rte»rt f-^. »:Ja*tW« 

r«turne4 tl^t ^« la«trtt»«»t i**® aot tto« last will &n<a t»»6*^ent of 

iS«orfl*Rft Sai«T^, Jk dAor^e wa$ eat«r«d ««ttlng; ftslde «h* will «.»€ 
tht prdbat« thereof, and d«fondants app««il« 

The r«©erd 41«eXo»«ie ttiat 8«orfi«s-a«. Saeby ^ae 82 y«fty« ©14 
ftn4 for a s^©jpt tl»* teafdi'* o«t©b©r S, 1937, he4 fe6«« «50ftfl«i«si to 

hi»r ^iM»fi, Qn ^ftt d«.j tb<? «x«euted the will ira <iu«#tl©n Sin€ 4%»& tvo 
dsyB -&ft#r«arA, 'hm llv#d l» th« fir^t «ip«rt»»Rt ©f » tv@»«t#ry 
fir&»» fettiiai^ St 20&4 ^, ?al««lcl roM (formerly Crawford avusa®), 
^leli shM Imd ©i».n®d for s<»»« tlss* &ut ^^ileh «^b eonv^yed tsj Mes* t#ii, 

Hftfl&trt !ia*by (irito llvtd apstalre), by & Q»ltelAl» deefi, Sov«sfe«jr fsS, 
1S3S. t%M» i««4 wa» not r«ooap4«a ustll ^aly t7, 1937» At ttee tim*^ 

of tfe« «3t«rati®n ©f t2i« 4«»« Mre, a^Bby, bj a 4ult«l«lM 4«#d, 0«n- 

v«ye€ 3?ro|^#rty l&eat»a at 7S8 ^, aa«is« av««S!® t© fe»r iSL&ught^r, 

Joint tea4&a«y. fels d««d wm» s!^e©r<i«4 3»eitab«i' S, 10?5, 

th» will provided for th« pftya»at of Krs. 0meby»r debts »ad 



\ 






? "J^^J! ■■■■. '•^3)H vi.** rtUHifRf 



VtfMB Aaitt-^'ton', t9 Iliv «if9 «|bitA i»B ot AnMJU(4> ■1/1 ftiu ,l>«ft««9 

Jo 7a»eA$«97 K>aje IXlir #«al •dT ;r«a «um #aMUfWttfll «utt >«ff 5tiit«t»K 

.£!«■ 2'tA9v ■•>:- ■'*.^.> v:d'»f>!.: .Muily«««^ fMtt aftvoXnuJUk Me*«7 •iff 
Oir$ .tf'»»u:» al XXIv sill Mfti»«xt «it» T«A imdt aO .A«tf iimI 

.{•i«i»v« b-tctvtO ^XtfRr-jcl) l^«<n ij£«»Xir^ .9 MIca #« yiXAXitftf ••*«1 

«»fflif ngia *i\ .TCSX ,t<J tXvl. X1J«« A^ftntoOttl »oo •«• 5««A w<T ,58«X 
-flo© ,&«#* «XAX«tlup A trf .^Mr*^ .«'S« &••* •Ai to AOl^firtvx* »i:fef lo 

ai ,iKS«dsr • •*"^' «.•*«.■:<» r ' I i >.•,»«•)".'..*•.■ ?,<-.* fi«.«.stiglXXiw <({«M «l»Xtfn 

," • .^rT a *! © »%,: »»4)1l'.'.'»»»"1 «»w «*■«> ^' ,lt©l9ftfl*^ ffflLlOl 



to Kiltear ('«Ul3«rti) OXmn, her graads^ss (on« of pl&la«iff«), ;i-SOd, 
ftad t^^ th« thr#© ©liildy^R of mr d«««««»d Sa«g^t#r, & n&te fer 111,000 

r«si<Sut of tli« 8»t»t« was 4«Yle«41 t© bep ssa 'i#rb#rt, and tb* 9lb«>r 
fealt t© fe# dilvia©A m #qu«a part* - oa©-&ta? t© H^rfe^rt'w sMiar^n 
AM half t© tii« ©hild3P©a ©f tmv €»e®iit»«!d danclatt?, fialda '^'^agr 

tr«at d««4 «a L»k» ^wrleh property, whloh h*si fet^js «s«euttd fey h«r 

dattt'jattr, Mr«* SiSllllaasssi*, tkm\ h»r fe»»&«aa, Imd ^s^^nn iurr*isd»r«a. and 
ft r«l«ftB« d©*>4 ex«out«a St tho tlia« ef «h« e©iiv«y*r.o# fey Mrs. '^meby 
6f h»r two pleeti ®f property by qultet«ita a»»d«, and th&t tfels tfii* 
d©!i« T&««»»i« tb« property eo»v«y«d to Herbert -w&s a©.r« Viklu4iisl» th«n 
th»% ftoaveyed to Mr«. silliiu8ft©a» 

fhs eYld»nee further siiows «iAt froai A'^at tht yeftr If 36 
imUl ©ototewr d. 1957, i#r«. »«<iby iiad execut*^ four *?ilie. v^aly 16, 
1937, h®r Attarii«y ffe«SHiMt« f-^thlentn, wh© had Mtn a8e«^y«lBt«<i, with 
Mrs. n««tiy far a Ba!sl>«r of ytare, drtw a will fer tiisir altfe vhlekdist 
*t«8 net B«tlefl«»d and «ft«r¥*rd she dit8lr«»^ to b«iw> thle %flll ehan«»d 
ulileli t&« &tt©rtt«y &eeordi»gly did, tent, m t«stin«d t& toy Miss, h« 
OAd® aa •ri'Or by Iftavlag mitt a jj«ar«4r»|;*'h ; th.*st afeout ft »«!iek Nsftjr^ 
Cotober S, h» iir«p»r#d ^notli^r vlll and sjAlled tt to --'re. -'ssebf «t 
a*!* heB)«; th&t 6ft*r tM» will was ®all»*l b« r®0«lir»d & t»l«ph»a» 
•all Ittf^nsinf hits V&&.% Mr®, s^a^toy ^ss 11 1 j tls«,t h^ w^Rt to mr lioa© 
0«t«b«r S, »nd fftUBd h^v ia btd. At that tl»# L®:ur» L©'3»,off lif'ae In 
Mris. iimetey'i? loedro©«, iirr«inf,«a«nt« Isairiftf b«i*R tsa-^e to have h«r tMr« 
t© wltn«is!8 ts« will} tliat Mrs, S»#fey «4fn«d tfe® will In the feltoben 
h«%w% aimbte t© do «® lylsf Is bed end It %»« vltiists«d toy tJi# «t- 
t<»pa»y and L«wra '5C«li©ff, Merlstrt, tfe« »&ia, ws,js in tht he>um «,t tl^» 
tl®» fkiwl there w&e «©»» svldeae* h« ^me la th.© Ilt«fe»ft w.h«B tM will 
wft« «a8©ettt»d. 



000««^ tot •t«o A tiviid^iamb i^*t4i(i««fe t^ to aoKftljUto «n4f m(} of Ana 

«f!f to tX««(-»»t9 •^ptfYoqrent? tfolhtuCS 9->^i Mo *••* fainf • vS ftoittroM 

<x9ifte 9iff htut «l'&«d'stH flot •>«<! (Kt ^mpt^Jt oav M*ftio OitfT to wmkimmi 

notttXiito «iU'x«tfi:«>H ol tltt£{<->«i)0 • •fi«9 Xa«<»« fii Jt^&ivIA ttd of tlMl 
fft^ AflX0^' ,'sofft;MMft M»»«(M»«ft f»il lo cioiUbXlxio mtt of tXotf bn* 
«nefiioovo b^mjm •«« fiotfvoi^ .jiooawXXXiii 
:%r!J xd limi^9^^ nSnn Of^i,S^ Odt tiU» OWMte oMTOftlVO tflf 

:uoos» a»*<l £vs<< doltfw ,Yt«o<to^i; iloiitrS'. ojUJ «e ftoiMk tamf 

X^<^ t<^ »oa«\ovtioo oftf to oaXf oitt 1« J^ofvooxo Avoft otooXoiK o 

«ov £ii^j ?Aii^ 5rM ,8A«o& 0l*X8tiiip x^ x$%«qiyti to tooAlcr o«rf •toil to 

aajtt oltfOflXjiT it'ioa n»4 fiotftoH of A»t*VA<» X^'V*<loa<4 otff oowwotf onoA 

. :»«s«iXXXiii .mtM of J^ot«v0o* 'Mif 

i- ■ . ^r.j ..'ifowv. jccTii jaU? «*c>/;b ^Oftfrrot OOCIO&iVO orfP 

,5i \A^. .»iXiw a»ot bofffooxo 6«d i{tfo«e .onM ,7e«X ,6 «iotfofo^> XifoM 

ilfiv imialmup^m nniKl AmA oifv ^noooXrffo^s OAoodT xoino^fo tod ,TC;€X 

BiUApia* flflw n^fil lot XXlv o imfi ««iMO\ to lotfaiNi « tot t^ootl «t*3^ 

-<»in.«do i/'- '^''^t oviu! of Jbinlitmb %dB JKo«^»fto bam ftditalfoo foif tow 

9d ,»l£ „. J l»»itif«of 00 «fo<f t^XJ& ^XfiilMoooo xoowffo oiCf AtUAi 

Vt0^94 >'4#v ^ f i<«MfO fil<(f Iff'^Wt^AnUlil M fVO ^JliVOOX ^ HO'TtO OA OtO« 

3fA vof- li f^oXXAdi ft«A XX/«r locffoiu fr0T«q[O*i^ •/! «9 •satfofoC 

frrf^'^ ivoviooot od E»«X1ji« »av iXlw tiiff <xoft« fodf {wnA fd 

ms<ii< fff*if «ff f«!«!f ;fXl aaw ipfW ."''^ failf aXd ^alartotjsl XXoo 

?^.r siv.- 'n -!'■'' ... '£»<* lintrot &«« «ft t^^fflf^o 

«l^f *l». ' *Si«f» flood fRtVOif 0fttO«»Oai>«V«* ,W«0*lk#4 l|<vd:#£r 

ts«vd9?I:; .3 bmn%t9 t<fO» Ia^ 0? 

'■iA ^t*.i \^ IrocaofifXw 8«w ii bSiM b%r^ 'i o? fXitfaflV taXfcT 

«^f fa oaj^Oii o^ ffi oav ,aoa oeff ,fta<f<xoH .ttojfaS antMoJ Ano looi^ 

iitv »£}.; '^>:(ofl3l Oftf Si a«w oi( oo/td^lTo oasoa caw oatitf Jbaa otslt 



1931, St his -^fflef, t««Ufi«<i th»t h» al»© tr«fet«a te«r *t his ef- 

fle« referuarr, 1936 »n4 ^ril 22, 1937, fe«t difi aot tat htr fr©» that 
i«t« ttstil v-«t©b»r 8, eiieirtly b«f©r« «!i« ii#4, ^»« Oll^sF, & r«gl®- 
•|»f*d aureis* t«itlfi«4 §J3« »ri»ive4 ©is tJj# oab© a^feate^i? ?, 193?, aM 
etniffed watll tfe« a*xt ^y wh«B Wr«, ■i»«ljy €led. Jaek *s0«, a greoer, 
teetifieA fc« •**» her last ©t» Qetotmr I, 13?!?. ffe«»ft flv« ivsreane 
t«itlflea tli«t Xn their opinion., ythitn th«y ««w :.*•«. ''.s»tey aM« wfts of 

fi«v«a t»lts§«t«» ©«i b*iiftlf of plAirktlff* g&vt %«stl»«»i»y t© 
t^ eff«et th«,t ia tfe«lr ©Fdnion Mr«. s»»tey «.t tJi« <iiff«r«st t.lss«» 
they eftw her wa» not ef teuaA «lad «aid «ftiitory. ?h«y w'wr® ^. ulv««tia, 
a dentist J hi$ vif*!! 0«e«.r M,olb, an4 Ingyi.r&iie* broJceri Sr, 

Gtorl»t«ns©sj K«rfe«rt C, feUllaason, Mr*. J*a»Vy't iua-iii-lftiw ('bat 
«i^«e «rlf» tojftsS «l»d i^rleif t® th« «x«®atlet« of tli« wlllh i^fetrt '^, 
Mad<'l0ek «ind L«tt«r ?^'a»ll, '^llll««i»on*« t'so «oa«-la-l&»?, ^r, Br^im 
Cvffeo wes o«ll»d. bjf Herbert Sm^by *» «tt«nd hl« aotfeer) «av fe«r on tbe 
A&y t^e %»111 vftfi ex«eyt«d bvtt h« vft» not o«lX«^ m» & wltrtssi^. Th«r« 
i» eontiderable otli«r «)Vld»»o« la th« r»oor& iMMtrlfif ^n tb« @ubj(^et 
AH t© tli« ss«nt*l ftsMltlon of Sijr«. saeby »,»(* *» t# whfthftr undue 
laflu«ae« bad b««n ©x^rtwd apoB h©r by hor ion J!©rb«rt t© bring- ©boat 
tb« «K«eutl@n 9f th9 will but t«# 'thitU£ it itna&offs.'i&r^ t« detnii it 
h»}p*, -mttthe^r i<re. £>tt«~by b&d owistal cftp««lty to mOit th« «rlXX and 
tb« 4tt««tl®a of tt»4ttif l&fliMiiftff w«r# f®r thii Jury, -^ul^her^tf v, 
^^iiXitoerieftjp . 5?i 111, f40» Upon » ©on»ld#r«ti®it ©f ■all tto «vid«iie« 

ia the j»«®e¥^ i«f« «m*« ©f opialoR urn W9ult net b« iifmrr».itt«<l in «l«- 
tupbiaf tb.« ir#r^ct of tbfe Jury, ©©aflrmed $,.§ tt #«« by the ©hameeller* 
OB tb« ground it "w&s s^alnst thw m&nlfeet %f4»lgbt of tfei» #vid9no9« 
©«feiiS«jftt« c©ijt«tt«, they wer« (Sftniffd e. fair trial In tfeo 
a&nisslon fliiiS eaelu«l0a ©f «vl<l®aee, It Is argusd t&ist 8®rb»rt vl# 
wUXl»a8©ji vfsis p®i^ltt«d t® glv« te«tl®©.»y whiete ^«« l«®oai?»t»at mn^. 
felgfely pr«judl©lal. m t««tlfi0«!l h^ tm« siarrlad t$ sra, Es«8by*e 



3.«rJ i:o-M i'^'., ■"••^ i-^is bib Sitid ,V5ti .S** Xlt<iA ttxM »«©i «^iM«nctf«^ MH 

to ««^'<' «•■?• y^* '^'» yr.H* iiftivi ,«ef*?r-<» timtU ni tiuia ft«ill#tl»t 

,\i«aMi htui^ halm btiucm 

,d«r»«v ^l«w ii^ifi ,<ct0HMi &!» 6nia JSRii*a lo >•« «4aff <|ftH yAS xmAi 

.tS ("ittJo^^ •o««'uit<ii f>iui ,tfXoJl njiMO tvliw tiif U*ll«i«l^ • 

nliW A «K ft9Xl«9 tMI ««« tit tvtf A«rfir«»Xfl t^V IXiw SCtt t*ft 

o^« ^«iXid of f<x<»d«|o^i noa xmii vt f^ mp^m &»tt«x9 fii»i»tf Itmri 9tMi9tiXl(ii 
^tw 94# «iUw ojr t'X9a^«ft Umm t»H Xim» . l9l$99tfW •91l9l! 

*V Ttf 1 1 ^3 Xtf^ •X'Si^l IMftf rttslt ft^»« 9«il»ffXtflX 9IAb«r» to «K»Xt99II9< Mtf 

#0A9frXv9 a^r ttB )9 jieiy^fftl^ltAeo « ffoqU .o^S .XXI fi^S >«i^iw^9d^Ii^ 

(K0XX99ftArf9 9^ X<f «*« ^1 «• I>901ttA»9 «^1£ri »d9 t« *aX^9Y 9^ 2|Rl<;f'Vlftr 

»9»ti9Alm 9flt 1e 9£t9l9v ^»»llAAar «if# «ra«t«2MB **^ '^ Aflnre^is 9Jf^ 119 
9iiir fli XaXh? *iX4ilr A A»l«9» '♦'it** K«^* fca9feo9 9l^«Ulli^»t9C! 



&a»"&y for afe>©«t W yt«r8, M® -gien itsistiflsd o«n«^niiiiK' %h9i twt 
pi08«0 0f property «oav»yed toy tfet* qultelaia ct««ds ©xooiitft^ l*f s^-rs, 

th«n t«8%lfied Al^ut tfa« ^^^,000 Qo-e« and other s&tt^re. That ft.ft«r 
tht bftnJE vlth whleli **;r«. "-a«by dlA ^yaln«i«e ol9«ed, ^feieh «?&a la 
ItSg or 19S5, t'sri, Swetoy »«#«wd <i«prfffle«i. ajwt f«>rgttfal ansJ ott&n h&4 
••imxH» jjalns; tla«t they hsA 5?r, JohaeoR ejtaalne hc^} tl^iat be ofe- 
eerved htr in August, 1937, tho tlise Mr«, ».llllaj3ff«n phased aw«y, 
&nS, sh« s<i!ra«2 to d»GXlQ» phyBlectXlj i»n<ii a«;3t&ll? £t,ft«r tbut; ttmt 
tip te t^ tl»« .%!» vlf* dl«d h« «&» Krn, $m»hy fre^u^&tljr bat Af t«r 
t^t hr did net eo* h»r often; tbeit It v^as diffleult for hist to #$« 
liepi timt shd woMlIt OAll for hlet bat ii« wdft sot t&ls of tnis f&ot. 
Tht court! *i«Jiat vit» tS!« eouree of your iafarmatlonl' If yew (51<S, not 
g«t th« »ft«CAg«s, you didn't know &nythlai i£l>out it. ^b« h&4 frlondtg 
41dm* t th«? A. L&ttrA ;ioJieff told us. ^ It l£ obj<»fit«d trils k&s bi«&r* 
(Miy »aA the ol>j©ctio» waa ov®rnil«d. th« vltteese ftt!?tbt;r teatlfltS 
thatt 5illb6rt Olson, Mr«. ;i8M»b3f*a grandiaon <mtl ono of tlio plaintiffs, 
iffeO liYod '.sltk Mrs. Hsfteb)^, tola Mr ho hm4 tc go outside to ti?l»phon«; 
tlbat tfeor« WHS a. tolopbone up#it&lr« la Ress^Msrt's n^iertEw^nt bat 
H«rb«rt'e faially dl« aot voftt tela to u«s the ttl»p^,ene, Tn rim- of 
%hti rooord w« «ur« of opinion ik&y «rx^r la t):il9 ros^eet wsuld not war* 
rant us m iiol^ln^ ti»&t tlio vejNiiet of tn» Jvjry stoald be <listrub«d, 
Miiio g«.keff }!uiiiritif tottiflod o» the h«&rl8||>:» 

y« ftro ol«o of opinion there «#»8 no error In p«?ralttln^ Mre. 
Ulvostod to tootlfy tk£t iQ Jli«r oplalon Mrs. daoby ^isan un&Wift to 
eorry on is^r l»u«liii«>»» tr&nftaotlons. Kor ii«as th^ro aity error In p<»r* 
KlttlBg tlMi wita®«(9«« to glir«5 i««tlaoay to th® «Tf#et that Mr«, s««l^ 
woo vory fon«i of hor gr&tidaon, >llS>«rt Olecs, as it mlgrht t«ii« to 

•how that tfeoro woo tiaiftuo Influ^noo ^hXch e«.iis#d Mro. Sisoby to glvo 
twt fS^ to tei®, w« aro alio of opliilon tlioro wot no ©rror la ro* 



s»«<tr^rtr «!fr ,ti»r.«JkrJttal •tf^oi/ t« 0oJtl»»irp lutf o^ Oil 9ci:giM •oa«JklVf 
'rv'' . i^fjTffie n^rC^Q ibA* •100 000 «£^ Mfy tfuocfA i»«lti(7t»# nmfit 

6*4 ^«#to £t«t/ xol ftojs Jb(Mitrtq*A l>tif*M Viit!^ . -v SS9X 

,^«itit J>9«»A<; a««««ilil9 .111)^ •all •ii> i7SQI «#«ir3Mi!^ Hi fd hw^w 

iA^'ii \S4ui$ 1991^ %Xl»itHM ba» tXX»»iaxil<S •ffiio«A of fiaoc^A^ tito ftoui 

•t#9tA llKT <|XltB«ir^*^t ^tf«Mr A* vrf 1»«1J5 vllv «Xli MiX^ Mt9 ot qili 

•»« «ur eit! •xoi tfitfoittxA ««w 9i ^Adf tn^^o "st^ •#« ;r«ft Mfi 1^4 lAdtf 

.tiijil wi^l \0 ibXot t<»« t*tf «fl ffftf AXri TOit XXaa AXtfotr lou ti»£br sieftd: 

tea AiJb fH»t 't^ tflcX^Mnotal ivot to ootuoa »r;9 ««« tAitt" :9tuoo offlT 

««£flOX<lt JMd oiif .41 jTmotfA $«i^t^fij| aro«4 i*nbLb M9X «t02|«s«ft« MEf 9*9 

"'t&tm »«« ttiitr &«tOtt<IO ' «»» bXoH tlOJ<0 MJiAJ »A tOfU f*JilMA 

»«ii:!!tl#ii«J tarf^tfl tiBtflyXir art? .^oXtnnQVo taw iroi#o<»{,cfo aicl# fenn tM 

,<1tX?«l«X"i Of» to OflO Xjiw notft^Mti ?;»\tf*(|4' ,«t?»! ,n©sXO 3^$dLi-: Sa^ 

\9GfidqftX9t oi pt&tntaQ o^ c^ A^^ «uf «Xj( blai . ■:'* dSi^ iovXX oAr 

to woXv 'o;fqiil«* »(t? •«» of aUrt J««*r #ofl ftXft ^XXisot «*»'X0if<t9B 

«^&^ f Of« bUiGk- t^nqta^-i «Xitl nX icomt \a» «olfli;QCO to oo* «w in^9«i laii 

,. iijftflfi^/aJfa ' rirt, »ftJ to ;r»XJr««'/ fail^r 3Mit :s^ZbS«ni til na $tun 

, ^ntt&titi »ns Be ^oXtinwr 'ifUr^a. ttojlo;^ nmM 

. i:*'. ^ni:5;?.rc.-i - lav Btorf? 0OXlTX<tO tO 0«X« <n« OW 

-- -£dar.w i?^-^ %us^^ = -oXnXqo -t^H flX Jji49 XtX^Jes** oiT ^o#9»vXa 

^•^•ft Jot^*- * •' oy t««aX#««r orXa ©t i[o««o«*Xw ««tf -gmitiim 



tu.6%ng lo ptrssit fSr-s. mrwiu "st^jr, vif# of s^:«rwija. fimihy, &m &t th« 
|fr«tfti.»«iis , aa4 ® def«nl»iit, to t#8tlf/ - §h^ '^&» ia«Oi^<it«at, Xia. i*« 
Set^l^g of t»@i'^i is» :<si8? Ill, App, S8, 

Csaijjl&lnt l(j slffo a&d« tfejst tla^ csurS errf'^ In r^s^rletlag 
%t» «r3e«»$x«sln«tlon df v^ll^]r>% Clsoa, fh« &t>ss|i>Ifi.l^t ii %h».% h» 
testified ©a opo»s-«x««la».tl®« he ha<s liv«4 i»lth his gyaifsda^tiwr f©r 
ov«r 11 y^as?"*. St was th«s aii*:»4 If h« »v#r paid, h»r «Sf fe^ars'l. 2t 
^■&» ebj«et«€ thie ««» not ero»»*«>ma»ln&ti&a ani the dbj[«ett£$a w&et a^uk^ 
talfi»^» Ther« w&s n© •rror In tii« p^lln^, U9f vm* Ol^&n an iR8©«- 
p«t«nt vlttieeCt «« dMf«n£Lanti» oontsmd, b@e«us« b<« wa« @t%l^ inter- 
r^fttcd en direet •xealnAtloit &«i to »jRtter« ooettrring &ft€r tM s^i^^'^" 
aothep*B death, first piur. , 8«e. 2, eh«p. 61, III, r:«v. »tat«, 193S*, 

0$»pl«ilRt i« *l«e %ii.d« th&i tlt!» court #rr««l la p«rslttlitg 
plftlntlffe* eoansol td ia|»«ftel2 &»» of S«fftn4&ntsi* witR«e««i *%n & 
a«i.nf»«r i*®t atttfeorls«€ toy law}* that tbi ooart P'e.r®lft«<i ^:«ildr«d J, 
f'ii«ll, on# of plaintiffs, to rolftte « eonytrwRtloa with def«M*nt»* 
vltne«e« ljair« E^ekoff ««ft«r the fun«r«il of Mrs, vacby, tto® vltn««# 
t««tlfl«d th&t Ucura S^koff told th# wltn<»*«f thikt H^rb^rt aa«by, th« 
aiiel« of witness, did aot w«kAt p&rtl^e lnt«r«itta te a«« ^e »flll for 
oosBo roASoa; th^t h« had dliseu^ted th« will wltti hit soth«r b«for9 It 
*r»o «x«eat«d; that ifth« <31<S, not vant to elgn th« will but &ft»rir«r<l <liO, 
to. The ©fej»«tiott was that thl« wft» tssarsisy «vlSoso# mi& sft#r th«i 
irlll w&s «icfte%st«d. In eona«otlon with this oounaol for d#f#n&&nts 
e«y* ^'^'hll« LAur& "^akoff iw» b«lag oro»s-«XjSiiislnod sk« ^^a« ask#€ If 
imoh A oonversfttion** Jaad takon plaoe* H1b« .^okoff aa8.iw«r«-a in tlj» 
ntgfttlve. *« thlak thsro w«« no orror la th« ruling, tho hoarsay 
mlo was lii no way involvod. Bf>lt Hy. Co . v. Conf r<gy » £0© III. 344, 

BofoaSants further eont$»d that tlio ooart «rrftd la glvlnf, 
at Iftiip r«qu«»t of tlalntiff«, ln«truetioa« mia»to*r» I, ?,, Z, S, ?, 9 
and 11, and la r«fual»g to i|lv« dof«n«Sant«* tn£idi»r«d Inntrviotloa If. 
lastraotloa* I and 5? advlw»d tti« Jary on tfae sfuoetlon of th® sstntal 
capacity t&e law rei|ulro« of ©no w&o 8!ak«ii « will, aad ;'^;o. ■ g also In- 
olttdod th« el«»«nt of "undue Inf lueneo. * th«r« wa» no fiafe»t«iatlal 



.«l*«it.t«»^ isi ft.*-?*** fiwod mii* *«<«* •**« ln/A «i *Rli»X^pMiiJ 

sAi^^i^nAf fii &«T«<» t<xif«o mGT fxidt •lijia otia ii tAiftX^IPOi;^ 

*<»?cr4i>»*t«d jit/v iioilMv^Vffo* A •««Xn •># «tttitllX»X<| !» 4NI0 «XXmi« 

Q««»^iv «fCt ,i«t»ct: .«9»i to X»9«aul «d9 t;»#t««ll«C«i,«^ma ,«4Mtfl« 

»<5el»«l "x^cifc* «io mi^f JUX% (mO i^«i»«ir#«ZA ittH •^ *»ri# }«ma*ii •«•• 
5's*»ni»*l& i^4 Iliw weUr a^Xf of #««v ^eie **!* •<(• tA*I* ijb«#<i»«x» «*i« 

Rjft»i)R«t*J& -set l9»mtm^ 9id9 ^i» tmt$*m»9^ Ml ^»#u»«x» *mt ILht 
M h9fl»^ *«-j* e4» l>«fiXiWX***««K» aoX»«f 9»» ll©i»s vrnaU 9Um* ,it»« 

v^i.*^**^ ♦d? .^iilXi9« fld» aX %#v»« «k •«* iw«l* iU»XjI# ftW .«vi?«8ftA 

,SX aoUmiiiiiil km^ioi^s *f$n.^&nl9^ tivl^ »| S^i«4.*tw% «X M* «iX kOM 



error in thftc* lii«tri«etl«fte. gfaai&^ll v, CSiaii^jilS,. IM III, Sltj 
pm^9. V. iallai* "^"^ ^i^« ^^^* :^-ial ^te«re-ey v. ^ ^aXs^bftrger. 371 III, t4^. 

v©uii»tl f0r tlmfmndM>ntSr mtntj^n^ tru%t t>5e court $».v^ « nass'feer 
of lag true tlan« ©n tfe* ^u#sSioni c?f "undu** Influence" although there 
wA« as eTlA«iHC« thfct 'K©«IA s^i«te.ln ««eh tk at-mt^m, w» tiilak tfci» 
eoRt«ntioR oaaaot b» t^stalaftd, Th«r« was ct-it^ne* t© the «fftet tJint 
fthortlj' ^for« M.rt. s»»tey dl«d, h»r «on, Herbert, Atd as>t i?Aat ijl&lfi- 
tlffs t« «««• :h«r| that fe« ©ailed Ur, Itrowa ts es* hi«i motknr shortly 
Ismt&re u'h* 4i«g l^t ((lid a^t enll him &« «it witna^s* nor mi»«imi»t for 
hi«i ab»«no«; that t)5« dlstrlbwtlon of th® property (ysleh oon»iite4 
of fy©« fel6,000 to 818,000) »«'"«« toy th*? will 'wa» eotwf evldettee pro- 
]^«rly to h9 ooneld«r«d on this 4uofftiott. th^r^ X» othisr ovi&«no« in 
th« ro««r« boarli^ on this ctuestion «rMo)i vm tMnk ann^eesstary ta 
detail Ij^re. 

Instruction & eonpIalnoA of tola th« jury tfe«t *wh«r« & 
p<ereoii r«««lv#» tJj« laurgtr part of tfck« prop«rty of «, testatrix by h»r 
vlll,* or whe^r* the will 1» »«id« for tlao ohl#f bftnsflt sf «ueh person 
«M 0uoh p«rcon 1» oa# ia whoa tho stakor ro-pfi>«ss eonfld^aoo an4 trust 
"OAd %rh«r« «uoh ^nef lolary ots^yeoe tlie frill to lb« prtparod anA i« 
prooont at thM tlnut of tho axooutloa, suoh facts ar« eirouettanoos 
teadlBg to «how tJao exorelse of undue inf Iu»neie» * Si,n4 th*t If tto» 
Jury teeliftvos frots tJio ovliionco cuad under th* laatnaetioa of tht co^*t 
tte&t Mr»« ;--»«»tey roposod c©nfl<Seno« In H*rb«rt at tfe« tiaws of th« ©x- 
toatlon of th« will and l^iat Horbort ©««§««! tho pJirportod vlll to 
ht proparoA and waa proaont at tho tinto th« irlll ^&s oxecutcd, the 
Jury chooKI oonaldor auoh faote in Sotitrminin^ th« s^uaetlon of ttti4»e 
Influoneo. On« of t^o objootloiit nrgod to tbl# inttruotloa it t3y»t 
Vmrft waa no ovidoneo that Horbort oaueod %h.» isdll to b# pr«p«r»fif 
tiaat it vas proparod fey 13iO attornty, ?Ji©«iat J!atfel«?ii»a. Dr, 
Ghriatansoa te«tifio€ tl^t on Oototeor yT« tea n&v Mr«. 3«M»by and tt^at 
»hm W8t9 oa ii«r d«8.thb»df tfe&t a«rfe«rt aakod Ma if ftl» snetlser eouia 
taka e»r« of p®rj»oiiAl ^.eiaose and aattore r«l«tlag to tim.n&6&, fh9 






^ 



fr .., v 




^ir« «««4ir«& ^; 


, 


& Vt'?»rf>t*' J.*;; 


Ai &X0# 



t«« liift »t«f >(f»!^ eff« 



■i •xtt^jnK' 6i<l KOflhr «i •SO 8i ac i/a hum 

- - » : * < . . „ Jt* ^, .♦ .. - ..■* ^U X ,^_ .-..-. ~ ™ .«. . -♦ f ♦ "Kits 

■ ■■(■.'■ 



-7- 

&f^t&r r«pli®d m tii« aegattiwi, Tfetr»«.ft«r, Or* tJhij»«t#a8on wftjs not 
eftll*d Ifut ft iMDw 300 tdr vmn «fiilX«4 In. ?kr«<i 4ayf af tes%r&r4 th« will 
was «s9out#<i. 

Wllb«?i*t Cl»©n t#stlfl«<t tlMRt after his gr&ndmotiior di«4 hi« 
un«l«, herb»rtf %&l& him stot ^ atajr ftnjrthlag to th« i^tlllftJBsoni &n t<i 
v^iftt t«o^ pl&e«. It WAS ndt errer to giv« th« Instruetien on th« 
gi<«aftd titers v&« no 0vlS«ne«» upon vhieh to b^ee «ny undue lnfluene«. 

My InctruetLom ? th« jury ver* tol« that •laesiuftllty In 
tslui dlfftrl^tloa of i^r^perti^* among t^oae vha t^uia Inh^irlt it if no 
will biA lam*n aadff 1<> not of lt»«lf •vldienec of stnd»e liiiflu«nee or 
un$oundn««i» of mind but v&s a clrcumetftne« th«,t mlgl&t be eoneldervd 
fti tendlag to eitAbllfth un^^o influ«n®e cr uneoundnepe &t alt^, i<c« 
think the Intstruetlon »»« not «ttbete,n%iell]r tla« »««« at th« in- 
etmtetlen eondessntd in iO^no^p . v, j£2S2SE» ^^ ^^^' ^*^* ^*** ia^trwe- 
tlim w«» telctn v«r1»«tli» fr©« un l««tr«eti«»a »s;4-.r0i«»<Sl In g njgXsn4. ir. 
*• y^ybtt*^ . 304 III. 594, fh«r* *?«« no error In giving %tm iaetjruQ- 
tlon, 

Plaintiff** inBtruetlon 5 told the jury wh*t W4» eit4»r|f«4S 
in the eofl^laint, l%«r« imi« no errer in giving eaeh nn inetruetion 
•lane there wiks evidetiM tendit^ ts pr«ve the Allegatlene. SsMcJX* 
^?. T, afenniiter . IWS 111, 48, 

iy ln«tf^etion 9 th(» jurf were tol^ thMt in oonsldering the 
onse tttejr ch^uld not tMtt «i»ide their <»«n oowsen obeervAtlon* and eae- 
perienee a* men in V&9 affnire of life, ete. but had the rigl^t to 
«9i&«id«r all the evidet^ee in det^naining vrlsert i^e truth lies upon 
any BMterial fact in tlsm oace. Thtt^ vas » proper Insitruotloa &n& the 
inetruotion* deadeMsed in '^t^ . in.Jgegi i v. Morthjejrn , llXln9ie fel»phon<y 
€e. , 260 111. App, ^a» ie not in point, the in«truotloa there 
autliorlsed the Jury to deterftine tlte %a^ aooording to their ooiwson 
ebaervatioa and experienoff. m eueh prorieion ie la tlie ine true tlon 

Itaforo ut, feut on the «®atr«ry the Jury were told to take tfeelr ex« 
l^rionoee a« men in eonneotlon with the evidenoa in dttei^tining the 

faote In the oaie. 



adj «<. ri;^»«i f4tf »fl9 ftdr n<rvs9 i9m »m tl ,»o*ici i«D# t4ihr 

4«i^ Mc> iti^i Wit r Aoi^eifiltal ti 

->r>t7';^n0; .H^f, .III aSt . aitflgq .v gJMWO Bf £«lM«l»AOt A«il9tf<|<6 

"^inSn&l ftd^r j|«^vi;( Ai ^toii* on bwv «rt4Mtft •^6$ .1X2 ^^0$ ^|tefirf«Ji^ •« 

.? HMW tit^a vtyi •itl feX«4 ^- ii«i^«m^»«l UllXtflXxi^i 
rtRiij^otri^jrnflZ aft dOifO '^Ivlf ft! <i«n[<xt 00 9«w n»tfl •tffXKX^I^OO odf Al 

: ,,8jtt; .«s90l^*l|oXX« t«F^ ovo^t^ «$ piXAa«t oftBoJ^ivo a*w ^voilf ot^Ut 

,U All ^l . tflUM^ ,v ^ 

:;r ^^i'SAi^X'iiKi* 0X f«<l^ &X«} l!''S9vi t^i^t 91^ ^ aoltotfUmili l||l 

a»« ««ici449irt»«^c nesMpoo «ifO ':^li^^ Rjbli(« »•« lo« t^lan^ \0<i4 ««A(|» 

a^ tj!t«ii ml b»d Stt4 .el* ««1IX )o oilAtlA oiS# «l ffo« a* oMtiio^ 

' «<»ii j^i'- - '^nviltf i«X«X«i>90to* fli t»r:o6XTt •it XX* <t»AXiliio# 

' ;/i^t~$0: «$^q<?«% j$ ««if »id¥ .OOAO o^ Hi to*) X«i^il«n Ki# 

^•4.....i :;v*....-u.'«...i ^.;,' ,i»t9Ci Ul. lOH tX ♦8«« ^Q^ ,XX1 0»? , «^ 

'^ii> t'»X« ir»it««iMlftO iri «•« i« ooMMNWt 



.0. 

Coo^lftlnt i» also taaQm to inetruotlon 11 « l3y >diieh thu Jury 
iMr« teld who would ioherit Kre, Saeby'a property in ca.«e there w&« 
no will. It la «aid this instruction ignored the will of Mrs, Smeby 
na&e July 16, 1937, "Phere Is no merit in this contention. The 
claimed will of July 16, was in no way b©foz»e the Jury for consider- 
ation. Moreover, the court at defendants' request told the Jury 
that one eould disinherit sorae of his he ire if he deeired to do so. 

It is also elaie^d the court erred in refusing to give an 
instruction tendered by defendants by which it was sought to have 
the Jury told that "it is incumbent upon the Plaintiffs in this 
ease to establish undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence,* 
We think there was no error in refusing. 

The Jury were told in substance by a nuaber of instructions 
that before they eould find the testatrix was mentally incapable of 
asking the will or that undue influence was used, they smet believe 
these to be px*oven by a preponderance of the evidence. And in an 
instzniotion given at defendants' request, the Jury were instructed 
that "The law pi»eeumee every person of legal age has sufficient 
mind and BAisory to make a valid will and oasts upon those who contest 
a will the burden of establishing by the greater weight of the evi- 
dence that the person seeking to make the will was not, at the time, 
of sufficiently sound mind to make a valid will, * £ven if we 
assume that the word "establish" as used in the offered instruction 
was unobjectionable, we think the Jury were sufficiently instructed 
on the two questions and ^e refusal to give the instruction was not 
reversibly erroneous. 

Upon a consideration of the record we ai^ of opinion that 
no error coa^lained of was of such a character as would warrant us 
In disturbing the verdict or the decree. 

The decree of the Circuit court of Cook county is af- 
firmed, 

DSGMl ArFIHMJSB, 
Matchett, P,J,, and McSurely, J,, concur. 



( 

-8- 

•Av «m»r oLuon otfw M«# f«M 

<(l^ a bvaonal noi^Ointafli aif{9 Jft2«t ai ;}^I .Iliw on 

9d:T .noi-r'l^^;i409 aidtf ni ^i'xss on al ariaxfT .TS8X ,81 ilifl iAMi 

-^s0i9flcc vl^ ancolsd tsw on ai saw ,81 x<^tf^ "to XXiw Jb«ni«Xo 

Vitft 9iff blof ip.»up9'i *a}a*AAal»6 ^« ^tiioe mI# ,i9TorKoH ,noXt« 

>«iia«£ aif 11 tnXad aiil lo aiaoa ttftUil^tb bSji— mio taMY 

*nla<ilafi ui hvtin litioo ad} AanlaXo oaX* aX #1 

»viirt 1);^ ?iis«oa saw Ji rioXiiw xtf •J«a6n«l«J5t x^ Jb^iabaajT AoKtoirx^anX 

3lii^ fix alll»nl«X1 ttt noqu tn^dmunal •! #1" t«iO ftXo^ vs»l M& 

*,a9n«&Xya ftslif to 90iUrtafinoq#^q a xd •onaoXtiii aubair itaXXdaJn «• 

. Flavian ni voii* •« t4w aivaii} ^XxlJ vV 
acoi^oirx^axii lo i^^mun » \ii aan«»«tfva ai i^Xe^ aiiav X'Xtf^ a^^ 

i9 •Ldsqsioal %lLAtaem aav xXilA^aa} •Ai bsil^ AXupo x*^ artolad Sons 

avail^Q ^9ua x^^^' ,l>«a« a«v ••naiiXlnl auJ^v ^axfl lO XX/w «x(^ salias 

a* ni ^Aii. .aonadbira •At lo aeaAnca^flOqa^q « x^ florrxq ad o9 ^awff 

b9touii%at 9^w x"tl *^ «9aavpa*i 'a^naO/ialaft «a aarla aol;ro£n^aai 

Jaaioillirt 9ud 9%» Xat«X lo aoa-x^q X^«^« ■f«'«rxq waX ailT" ia<i» 

7:^7000 qAm woAS noqu a^aao boa XXiw AlXaT a ajfaa o# xio"** ^« ^''^ 

-XT* »A3 lo li^siav ta^arx^ adl x^ saX4aXXtfa»aa lo naMvcT oifl XXiv # 

,t)aii^ aietr ta «^oa aaw XXiv aifif aiaa o^ :^alt9»ii noaiaq •Af t»Ai aonfdl 

m li nav"* * .XXiw ftiXar a aiaa o? ftflia Jbavoa x-t^oaioitlM !• 

rtoiJos/nJani Iwtsllo ariJ ui J&a«tf aa "daiXcfa^aa" Mo* af(* J^arfJ wniftta 

b»i9ini&al xXJflai®illtfa yx»w rial «rf* ialAt av »»XtfattoiJoattfoii« aaw 

. ofi aaw ft.-, f-tr-.n-rtar. f «>.--i «vf.-5 o* laaMtsi <»-''i:t &na aaoilaavp owj •At no 

•^ooeiKnrta x-E*^^*'**''*'^ 
Jad? noifiXn ^ siooai ad* lo noi;ra'xol>i9noa a aoqU 

au Jrusiiav* .fsXuow aa naJoaiaiio a rfoua lo aaw iQ AaaiaXqaoo iq%i9 «fl 

.atnoa^ 9At io t9lb%97 •At soitfii/laift £ii 
-la ai x^nuoo jJooO lo tiuoo tluo^lO •At lo tr(»aJ& «rfT 



^m (koonmQwm And libia. oooDssouffiii, ) j 

) / i 







©SOa&E OSSRHARSt 4fti| fi^SOLS i.aSiift<ARJ>TJ ) / S% 1311014 COr^f 



fRtiitr and ae^xt ^rl#id, # J | j / 'X€^^ CG^M"!, 

/ / 

«xeM£ msm/mYf J O U 5 i » A« 4 9 2 

Appellant, } 

MR, jtrsTiCE o»aoji»©R oeLZTEmr& fw: opisio* ®p fKK eouaT. 

Lydi* Cr00dftn«>ugh In a p«r«enal Injury oas«, h&4 & '?ej»<llct 
and ju%ment in her farop for iZflCK) a^aln^t aeojr^ Cberhardt, icbleh 
2fc» •talcs to raverea ^y this appeal, 

Tha raeord dieeLoiBee that about 3i^ o'oloek In thi» aft^r* 
noon of Oetober k:Z, 1957, Juna Qoodanoug-h was drlTin*^ her Ford auto«> 
»obll« eout^ in Laramia straat. Her mother, Lydia 3oa4anougJa, was 
in the ear vrith h«r and as sba vhm eroenlng i-'oet^r avenue, an taist 
and wast throtigh !!«tr«aK, lAia ear oollldedi >fith an ea4it*bounS whryaler 
automobile belonging to defendant, deorga Oberhardt, and driven by 
hie eon Itareld. i^o»ter aveaue, wblob is looated on thi^ north isidt 
of Chioafo, is & prafarantial street - tbere %re four lsm.BSi for 
traff ie. It is intersaotad at right emi^lee by i.aramie street, whiob 
has two lanes for traffic, A "stop** el^n is looated at the aortb- 
wast eorner of the interseotion. 

Flftin tiff's position is that the P'ord oar stopped at the 
*Stop* nign and sav defendant's automobile traveling 40 to 46 miles 
per hour east in the south lane in Foster Ayrtsmnet, .tbout 200 feet 
vest of Laramie street, the Ford then proeaeded aoroes the inter- 
seotion and was struck by thm eastbound ettr and both ears oa«© to a 
•top at the southwest corner of the interseotion. 

Ob the other side, defendant's contention Is that vlsen 



( ^mwrnmo^ aicij km wnMRnioM mum, 



, t-5 "i : - \«T«nA|n2^ Qjosumjik mmmuio wMmto 

tltiltit ^tb^MOtwiQ vinHise t*Blm%» OWSrl mot tavftt t«d nt ffl<«ylk»t Alt* 

.£**q<X» titf^ td —%W9^ of «lEeo* cri 
^i.*f\» »xi} ni ifooro'c! C';]5 tuodM VmCT tt«»«Xe»ifr 5irMiM OifT 
-dftni £%eK ii«tf salvia ttitv iiiafMM**«k> «Mil, «<(««i ,6i^««at*(} "^o a^na 
■A«r tKaMMt^KbooO ftjtibt«^ «ii»iEro« tmti .t»*v#t •IMmuU Hi iftiMM •XitfMI 

9bl3 AitoB mtSt no IwtoooX ol ifoXjrfw tosw^o itotoO'ir •dXonciiM noo ollf 
tp\ ««in£X <£uo^ «^ ftltoitf « y»oa[7« XAXlnoKot*%«T « 01 ,»tA0lil9 lo 

^r<*<** ,t »(|f jfjs, j^d^iB&oX 01 n^Xo *<!•#«• A .om>T<r^ «i.o'i «o«»X cw* awl 

.nol^ooo<Ko#iii «4# to 'Xi»f!<)t«c f«*w 
9x13 j'Ji fro^<iots ia6 ftno"^ oilir riutf •! aetflts^q o'ttXtnloX^ 
491X81 ai' o» 0*> ^iX«vo^;^ ofJeToooJ'uo • * STaaMoIoI) woo hut tt^IH •qd7i* 

>19:7{«X «H^r ooovoo lM»&»oo9rt<i ifoifT JHoU oifT .totntfH OXtUMoJ to ioov 

0} oojio aios) fffdtf Aflo «ue i&iitfotf^ooo Oflt ftf j(»tni#o oow Ano AOifooo 

.«ol9ooft<««}fi/ 0/19 to 'soo'xoo foou^imo orf9 to qoto 



•8- 

d«ftaAast*s &at9B»)bll9 vaa abeut 100 f«et v«8t of th«( intersection 
thft for4l wA« ft)M»ut 80 f«st north of tb« Interfeetlon, heith tr&vellng 
&t about the aasse r«t© of speed; that Harold, th# driver of d?»fen4- 
ant'e ear, eG!itliitt«d oa and wh«n ab&ut ?0 feet from lara@i« street, 
tfae Ford ear i^ieh yas about 15 f«et north of ''^oeter seas^d to be 
slewlai dovn - did not stop, but on the eoatrary, incre&eed ite 
spaed, and a« a raault tha eart eollldad, 

Tfea daufiktar, who ovaad and wae driving tba ford ear, and 
h«r sother, bz^ught eoit against (^erga and Harold "b«rh&rdt. fh« 
oos^pljiint traa in two aounta. Th^ firet was for parsonal and pro^rty 
Injuries sustained by the daughter, June, and the aaeond for personal 
Injuries auetalned t^ th« nMtth^r. tefendanta filed aneitfer« and 
counter claiu^a, Harold seeklng^ to recover for personal lajurlee saa- 
tained by his, ^nd Oeorge, the father, for daaaipea to the Ohrysler 
oar. The Jury found botit defendante guilty and aateaeed damages at 
12600 in f&vor of the aother, Lydia. &ftenmrd on aotlen of plain- 
tiff the Jadirtsent agalnnt Harold, the son, was set aside and the 
suit di ami seed a« to hla. The jury al«>o returned a veardiot finding 
June w«» not guilty as to Harold* « eounter elaiK. 

The only oatter argued on this appeal la that th« judgment 
against the father, Oeorge Oberhardt, 1» wrong and ehould be re- 
voreed on the grounde, (1) that Harold was not the father 'e agent 
at the tl&e in question; (2} thAt the oourt erred in refuflng to 
perait Allen Frte«.an, a lawyer vho ««• aeeietlng in the defenee of 
Ihe «aee, to testify; (3) that there wtn error in the instructions; 
(4) in the remarks of the oourt; (5) in thfi: reoiarke and conduct of 
plaintiff's Qouneel, and (6) that the verdiot is exoeeelve. 

(1) The evidenee ehove that Harold, who v&b about 
eighteen years old at the tiare of the aeoident, was driving his 
father's oar "coming home fro» the eefety lane, hy fwtJier didn't 
send ase, nobo^dy did, 1 went th^^-r© on ®s' ovu bueljsess. * He tsftl- 
fted he took hie father's ear and drove it whenever he vanted to 
do «o; that tiie father paid for the repairs, license, etc.; that 



<-6fl0l*t lo 'XVTi^ «»iti ,BioiuiS *4ilt^ tftM^ to 9tm% mum «tt y«Mf« t* 
,;f9<rUt »ls«tAi ee^t }#•! OS y«04f« A*d« ftM M hnunltaon «i«o t'tM 

Xtft^^etf!! huM £ur«<»«i»t n^t ft«ir ^inlt «ift .aliiiroo ovtf ill saw tuiAlipMa 
lAMaiSil let A«o«aa vtff tot «Mur% ,i«#ifs»«ft a^ lit AMlA9«i;t ■•l^vUi 

-tif« nalnirLaA XM»»st iidt <t«r««*ri otf .^clJfaM Ai4»«H «««lAio latAUM 

<i«Xsi;<i«0 ad^ «> iit»w«ft <«ot «-««iCt«t ailf ,«|«MI0 tea ««14 -ftf A«iiX«t 

t« t»]|MMft bMiaiiaa ikfiA XtXl0| ttAate«t«A J^otf ibillMl TWt ^^ '^(«» 

«4v|«X^ ttt MX^Mi ii« M«n«ttA .AiJrfJ «'t«t»«i «tft t« *k«t41 nl OOMI 

<%(!# »n« «i&i»4 l#« tJw ««•• «d# >Io«aR tmukM^ ffi«mMrt •J^ tilt 

,mkmit> %it9tm— t*AX«««K •« %» ttXi^i t«tt m« •««% 

-m ts tht9tin htm ^nmw uJl «tft^JHfii#» •am& ^%9Mtt •a^ a^^axoB* 
}8«sjft v'-ttdtAt •<!» tM %mt t£9%MM i(um il) ««taM»iq| Mtt M i^vtidnr 

t<» •««•««» •!» ffl BitXjraiftSA aw «lv fax^iAi « tMMm*^%1 iiaIX4 #i«v«t 

;ftiieitai/v>«<ii ai(9 el norva luw avatft t«d9 («) tttlt««r •# .aaaa atfT 

t^:- -^'^Mfeneo JMie 8:{'S4vi»^ afi? fli (4) {»«)t«a ad* 1» ajtaa«a«x a«(f iii (^) 

.aviaaaoxa ni 9ftlMav adST ««iitf (e) tHA ,XMiiaM i'ttXYnlaXd 

»»«tfj» a»i» eKv ,Me%aH fiuif awoiia aMia&£v» aiAt U) 

•id sfliXyl«sA aaw .laaAiaoa •!» to a«ltf Mi* tm H9 a^wa^ Maafiisl' 

^mt •a " .B«aAla0«r .Tvo xa no a^arf^ tf^eav -^ .*!& l»«<foit «aB A«aa 
eir &a^flflw ad tavwaMhr 9i aira^jb ftnA laa iHafiftat aiif Jfoot atf *«it 



on tlb^e di^y &f tim @.e<slS'ent iie took the ear ^to h«v«^ It ^st^ci %o 
eoaply with the rule &t ^m pollee dApftrtsmnt, ^nd to ha^vt a 8tle]e«r 
put oa it to shdw that It vms «x«ain«d. ** 1*« ti^nk tbie evl4*neie was 
sufficient to show that Har^W, At ttie tl»», was thu ag«nt ©f hl« 
fath«r. 

<2) flftlatlff e«ll*4 John :8ronoia ^o t««tlfl«4 h* «a*r 
th« a«icld«Rt smS that the Ford ear et®pp«d at th« north elde of 
Foster avenue. Gn erot«-«x«Al nation h» vat ftilctd by Qou«8«!l for 
&0f«ii4Ant If tooMioiie from coaniM»l*& office h«« a©t t9l9;^ii«d hl» 
fof tftTdajr and h* anev«rtd, •Xoa, Blx», * 4. "A young ^ta hy the nam© 
of ^len Frt«a*n OAll«d you on the tel«phon« — . * Thit was objected 
to hy oounsKl for plaintiff a» balng lam&terlRl. Th« objeotlon wa» 
ove^^^ul«d. fh« wltn««« th«a «&ia eemoone froa dofentamt's 60unc«l*(S! 
off loo calloS hla "Last night, " and ha dia not tay that ha did not 
me th« aeoidant but that he told XhB p9T»en an tba tel«phon« jumrt 
what he had t« stifled to on th« etand. Th« euB» thon prooaadod and 
afterward dafisridant eallod vltnaeaos, on« of i^on v&9 the young 
attorney Allan rr«««an, Counsol for plaintiff objeetad to th» wlt- 
aaes taetlfylng beoausa he had baaa la the court room although th« 
court b>ad, on motion, ordertd the wltneasee to bn <>xeladed, and ha 
was not pansaltted to ansver, m think it claar the i^tllag wa« 
isrroneoufi, wtien tJj« rule excluding the trltneseejt vae entered no 
one could have foreseen that Fr^eaan would 1» called to testify and 
thla did not develop until the vritness t^ronold was on fdie stand. 
7h9 chief point In controversy on the trial was wh«th#r the Pord 
autoBoMle stopj»ed at th«s north side of the Intereactlon. '^'Itaesses 
for plaintiff testified that It was stopped at th«t point. On the 
other side, a number of witnesses testified that the Ford did not 
stop at the Interseetlitn. Bronold testified he saw the collision 
and that the Ford, car was stopped before entering the intersection. 
It was sought to prove by Freeiean that the night before tiie trial 
Sronold had told rreeaaa he did not see the aecideat. the rullim 
of the court was erroneous and under the eireusetanees, prejudicial. 



t»i{£:^' ''^f^qtub •olXoq iuli Tit .... '>A3 dSiyt "itiftno 

'4^ •«««„: ^ .._..: .^i»aI»ax» »«*« tl ^af{# voifo <Kr 11 no tu^ 

' > w iJlOAe^ ado! ^•tU» lU»nl«I^ (3) 

•a-tr '•tclJi-jil^o i^in^SMMt sfl2fttf tA XtlfntMlq «i«il XMiiuoa tc^ of 

( fMdi x»9 t^i bli •A hnm - #t«J* alif I^oXXao •ditto 

iii*«t •'(y ^Xof oif taxb Iturf^ tfftiblooii «f» »m 

J5aA fr«ft«>o«iOT^ iisxlir Mftd oifr »hnMt% ndi a^ of Aoltllto^ 5«if %d ^tUbt 

HfiU^t 9iSSf %Mm Mkdir t6 Mi« tfoavMi/lw AoXloo iaahn^l^b hnstnai^ 

■ ^ 9i Jl^tfOtttfo ttlltilAl<t <M»1 XM1I0OO .HAaiA ^ XO<n<»t*A 

7 It aeort f^oee *ift al n99(i hMd 9d Mittootf saltll#»^ b«mi 

ftd &a« ,.b»fi«Xex9 Mf of ••••ftitllw adt l»9nftMo «iioltots no ,£i«il l^woo 

nlXvm 9^ •: Axlitt oW' .^oytflA o7 h9t9lmt9q toa saw 

<.>';! £;>«n«^li« am^ 'M999mtl\f ^df e tXin; vifir no/fit .aifOMiovtft 

^iSA ttltft»i eV hntlMQ Mf BXiiov aiM.i»»*i'^ ;}Miy a»M«net «t«i! 5Xu9d sno 

»!^.«r9 910 no tinr »(i»/i^lV ftifr XlYau q<»X«ir»ft liuf JbiJb •lilt 

f ift£»*flv »Aw idlif •*» lid t*'**^©^^"©^ tit tttla^ t»li<s •rft 

•'i»»n«iiS'l .«©i?3«»«t»^iil »i!t to tefei* iffiuiii mCjf tm b9fiqot}\ itlMaaotae. 

^rj a» IJj &miqoi» ' Jsuit Boili^ii*^ It'iltiiljttXq lot 

Uh", -.'s- ^--•ici-', %n? tAiSt Bolt Us s^ t:^^5*«»nriir to ^OlfisttiJ! m ,•&!» tftil^o 

ncialXXoo s<il «•» ^r^° '" '?9»# ftXoaonS .Ail7ooo*i:«#iil 9AS 9a qp99 

^aolfs^dfttnt «ifJ ^iT-'^-.):' <'.ne>t»«i fioqqoJ* »*w •wa Mol •iff #Aiitf fcru 

' '-^ '■-''t »ne%»4 tfjtglA oMy 9Atf# itoBOo^t xtf VVOY^ •# liilftwoo *-' -»* 

vA^;.w^ «i3T .^raojbloeo »dt oo* lo« &iA orif oaooo^*? 6Xo* A»i! iiiutK.ir, 

.X4il9lb(/t<n<| ,«»9Ji*tf«»tfo^lo 9d9 19SMM Sum 9U9mioyi9 •«» jhuwo wd[f to 



Btfetidant ©0£a$»l&ln8 of an inatructlea irlv«n At plaintiff® 
i*»qtt««t »e t© th« rlght-of-s^ay ©f vefeleles «pppo8CJiing an Inter-' 
s«atle»R. Th« eon^laint is that the st&tttte vhieh wa» ea&odl«d in 
the Instraotlaa dooe not ftpply wli«r« th»re ard st^ signs att &a 
intftr»«tttloa. tli« Jury had th« yii^t to to« told, as they vi^rv fey 
tfee Inetruetlon, that aader certain crleu»stasiee«! siftntidn^d In the 
Instruetlon, v«hlel«« approfi«hiag lat«fr8«etlo»8 trots, the right h&4 
th« right-of-way ov«Br th08« apppo&ehing froa tJ4« Isft, and thl« rule 
wai not eh&ng«4 by the fe^t tb&t there wa® « «top »lfn st thp lnt»r- 
eeetlon. 

^e other objeetlone liTged by oounsel for defend&At a.a to 
lEhe rera&rl;:«s of the eourt «nd of plaintiff*! oouncel, and this^t the 
verdict If- e.xee«elve, v?e ^iniE need not be dlBeussed here, since we 
h«ve reached the eonolusion that there lau^t i»e a nev trial on 
aoeount of the error in refueing to permit the witneee, Freevan, to 
testify. 

The Judgwent of the ^*uperlor court of Cook county Is r*"- 
vereed and the oeuse remanded. 

Matohett, ?.J., and MoSurely, J,, eonour. 



rH lAdS 9l ^rnlAiqpoo Mflf .nolfoea 

aji «r» «A^iw <niiiii 4mA •^•ii;) •Yftdv \i<iq(i tmu ••06 noilotn^Biil «r(;f 

'i - «« «fiXo9 ad oif tJfiJtfX oiU IkAd vsvC tifl .nol9o»a«*#ai 

•hn tlta &»» «#1«X 9Sit mcnl snidotonq^A Mocft icro t«w*t*-td8l«i Mil 

-i«;^fli td^ 7a a^t9 no$% a •«« •HAd^ ladl ^(Ml •«(# t^ ftAyoait* toit saw 

«.. ■•''m^\i ««n««i AMaiioaU^ 9d fan *«*a Jlalitt •»« i«ri«»Mx* vi t9lb%09 
no XAJb^ ««n A 96 tuum ^rfdt t»dt n»X»ul9ta09 tuit bti»»9% mMi 

OS ^SUU^"■'' .^-"^-""t- -••- ''»'~Tf»q 09 ^l*U\9^ ^* r.^^^ ^..-t >0 $bU999S 

.XlilHAt 



409^7 

AiiQmf SLOCE, ^ 




A^llfe. 




corporation, / I \_J^ I I ^ % -^ 



La ^ 

Plaiittlff brought *n action Against defendant to r«eoTer 
il0,4Of,2O elalaed to to dtt« und«r th^ terms of an oral agreenont. 
Th»r€ *fne a Jury trial and a verdlet la plaintiff's f&vor fer #S,000« 
Befondant novftd for Judgaant aotvithetanding tlu» v«rdiot and at the 
time also aoved that In th« «V9nt «moh isotion wan d«nlod, that it h« 
graatad a now trial. >ifterva,rd plaintiff, hjr le>aT» of eourt, flltd 
hla aotlon for a Judi^ant la hie favor for 110,407.!^ ln«t«ad of 
the Is, 000 avardad to hin hy th« Y«z*diot of the Jury. 'i!h» e«urt 
•attained d«f«nAaat*s motion for a Judigitant no twli^ standing the / 

v«rdlet and plaintiff appaala, 

Tha woord di»elo«#« ttjat plaintiff in 191?> teas erapleyed 
by defendant in the aakln^ of pianos. He oontlnued working for de* ^ 
fandant until ai>out february or March, 1930, whan ha left the com- 
pany. When he urae flrct employed he "vae doing oablnet work on tha 
benoh making grand plaaoa, ^ and eontlnued at that «ork until 19Ed, 
at vhleh tise he vas aade foreiaaR of ^e department. He eontlnued 
In tmeh position uatll about September 24, 1927, when he entered 
Into an oral agreeaent with defendant vherelqr he was to be in ehar» 

of the departtaent. fie wae to be paid certain epeeified prloes for 
the work eoatpleted in t^t department, out ef whloh he vae to pay 
thB wagee of the men (around 50 in number) and i^at wa« left wae tf 
be paid to him for hie ooa$$ensatlon. ''fh«rtt it no dispute about %» 
oral agreenent exoept that defendant's position is tiiat he was t« 
be paid, as above stated, but not to exoeed 360 psr week, while 
plaintiff *(s position 1« there was no suoh llffiltatlon. 






■it 



-tsroo''- ■ .5^=n9t^f t«nt5^,« aettom tm Icfjuio^df 1tll^0l«I-. 

0C«et tol tWMt a*11tl9niAXq: nl ^niftrtwr « ban Inltf xtui a 

lii -1,1. htm ttltn^r •as f^lbsiMiiiiit^on ;rn«^ ^ b9vcm tHMbam\«fi 

to ist« tot tfinrnt «lijl ni tunansJ^ttl « tot nelfmR »ltf 

SiUQO niTT .ic^ut *^^ tf) ti>ttnvr »tii xd Ktd of 6«M«w« dV 

£>«toI«?ia«» «Mr SX9X fii tti^BlAlq fAi£^ •^nolwttb MooM mIT 
••«$ tot |M>14t4Mir l^9Mil#AOf . vff&^lq tojftlJtoa ^jSS fl.' ^ 

it ae ittw tMiitfatt baXo^ ***" cJif >«xol<^pM t»nlt •«« 9d amIW 'I^umi 

|,SSQI Xl^aif sTtetf t«£l;r if a ^•smX^irvo ftiiA *««oimi1^ tmm%$ ^nlUMm Moa^d 

i9$mtttteo •» ,9ffmfviq9b tit te fllui«K«t fttMt nmt 9d 9ml$ a»idM tM 

&«t9#fl9 tuA ii«ilv ,'?S«X «>S t«tf«*tt»A t»«d^j> Xi^att floi^lao^ dSmm mi 

IMde aX ««{ «9 ftflw wf ttf*t*^v ffluKbfi«t«A ifflv }ilMi<»«t9« XAto «« e^nl 
«t 8«0X<!tq A«XtX6«<f» nXA#*i«e Alita; ecf of tJM aN .^HMRrtAq^A wit to 
i:»<5f of njiif nd di>tti*( tc. f t«? ,*««s55tji<i«ift tMM at A«#i»X<i««o j^row «fl 
a<iwr #tt»X s«v ;ffi£k fiiflB {^mimui tU 98 BmretA) fi«0 mtit t* ••^jsv Ailf 
^ue4la %tBii9ib ofl ni «»t«£n: .i«ollii«fl«<2ae» tld t«t aiif «9 AIjk] •# 
sir asv «£! tAdSr »i flOi»X«eq a*tf«u&<s9t#l^ t«£i)^ ^q[»ilKft 9rii«fl«»%jM> X«vo 
^Xiiiv ,Ji*9w «««[ 0«« freaex* o^ fo« »Krtf ,i^«»«#a •rodM m ,6X«q atf 
.ftof? sfX»iX dmn on •«« •t«.'tf ai H9ttf^ a'ttX^nXjUEq 



1^« <»vldene« shown tb&t every two %«»k8 plaintiff m«de out 
tlM p*3rT0ll showing the aaount earned hy e^aeh ciAn ^ho worked In th« 
£«pairtiBei3t; the ftsount to be paid by defentSaat for eaoh speolfied 
pieoa of woz*k; frois the total of theee prieeis, the men's ^agee u«re 
dedueted, and the halanoe remaining vae paid to plaintiff. For er.- 
«:a^le, the first payroll made by plaintiff under the oral agreement 
jihowa defendant eos^any wae to pay #2211.35. The amount the aen had 
earned duriag the two weeke vae iSll@.0§, leaving a halanoe of 
§9&.43, which va« paid to plaintiff. The »en were also paid by 
defendant the aoiounte specified in ^e payroll. Fl&lntiff continued 
in «hi« work froa September, 1927 until I^ecemioer, 1928, when he wae 
Bome«^at denoted and Merauui i\, Xunde, who had been an eaployee of 
the eoapany for 54 years wae aade foreman of the oabinet departaent. 
Two departaeBte at that tlae were eoneolidatea and from that time 
^u» payrolls were approved by Kunde. This aethod was followed froa 
December, 10S8 until eoaetiae in January, 1930, when plaintiff was 
advised that he would have to go back to work on the bench, Shortly 
thereafter, plaintiff olalaed he had not been paid all that was 
coming to hia under the terns of the oral oontraet and he testified 
he pjpeeented defendant with a bill for ^10,407.80, the amount for 
which he sued. A f«w weeks thereafter, plaintiff left hie eaployawnt 
and has not worked there sinee. 

lliree wltaesees for defendant denied that plaintiff U 
elaim was presented to them, as testified to by hla. '^le eubstanee 
of ^eir testlaony Is that they did not see the bill until shortly 
before the trial, which was begun Mareh 20, 19S0, Plaintiff brought 
hie suit on January ^4, 1956. 

The bi-weekly payrolls, all of idiieh were aade out by 
plaintiff beginning October 8, 19S7 and the laet dated January 25, 
1950, show the aaeuate paid by defendant to plaintiff every two 
weeks ooverini^ that period end nearly every bi-weekly payaent aade 
to plaintiff was *9© and eoae cents, except the first payroll shows 
he was paid 195,4® and a few others were approxiaately Ida, The 
evidenee shows taa* nuaber of hours worked every week by plaintiff. 



^0 »MiAl«¥ « DAiTA^i ,aO.&lIS% lav ftjt««v owl arft 9liitKft iftnM* 

%iS hi».fi 9»U <n»w AM MfT .mtaiAlq ot biiK •«# itolAr «•*•<•# 

A©imilRO« t1i*flij»J*J .IX«nt*q »il» ai A»i1:l«»qt •}atf«Mi wtS l«Aftii«t*ft 

«i«w «ff flttrf'- " ' ,'X»0«»»«G XiJxiw ^SX «t«rf»«*q«»2 «Ml iTtow sXii^J nl 
1« »»t«i^» "^ ''••rf f^*«J o«** ^t^aul Ji BMtn*li baa ktvmt fdmrnw 

4kAX;f «4iit CO-Xl AlU A«t«AXXO«fl«0 *M«W Milt #Altf ^A •;^IIMt«XAqA& owT 

3W>^1 6r*fftXXol tAW JI«d#M •li« .•AiUfl t^ i^vvM^A •^•w •XX©irtAq[ ttctt 

«Aw lllJ^fliaXq fliwltr ,oecX «x«tffut «1 mUmmi Xi*i«» 8S©X .iWmota 

%UxcAt .^ftfittf »!» fltt ii»w ot JtoArf 09 •> •▼aH AXiiow td *Arf» J^ealTJbA 

«sv inAS XXa 6iAq n»Mf fdfl til ti AmbIaXo llifniAXq ,n*^tAn*dt 

b9mS9*S «ri .6nfi t»Aa^ii«o Xa« w» to •««•# •!« loi&Atf uld 99 ^tm»9 

tfit ifttfo«A 9itt ,02 .TO*. 0X1 lot XXXd a dSlv taoAnotoA AotfAoiOTq o^ 

M3X«Xt4«9 »XiJ rtsi m^^niAXq , J'»»t«OT[W*r iioow wot A ,b9uu •d iJolAi 

.ooAia in9di Jboitov $<mi OAft Jb«A 

»»ttit«tXAXq tAdi &«la65 ir.^A^ir.*»t»l> i«t «o«a^»X«f soTiiff 

*»Oflft^»tftt« »<ff .«li< Vi e* ftoXtlJas* tA ,s»rf? o» Jlo^Asoovq »Aif aJjOo 

tUigria XX*na XXW oi» oo* f Mi l>i£ j.mlt tJuU oi Y«oai^a*9 «ioi» t« 

;l5i»«ysff lllSniflX«t .5SeX ,08 itoroM oi/s»«* «««» itoiife ,XAl»t 9d3 Miot»d 

.3S8X t>S VXAUOA^ fto 'lu* ti^ 
trf *A0 absm mw d6l^ to XIa ,«XXo^\aq YXio«w-l<r orfT 
»3" t^iujflAt bmi&b i%»t •dt bat T«9X ,8 lodotoQ sinliifliBod ttltffllAXq 
©tf* t««^ ttlJoXoXq o$ tOAMotoJ^ vi tlAci MiauomA 9di woilo ,05^ 

*w«if» lle^x^a fi-xit sirft *<5i»©xo ,8»fl»o O0O« 6aa fltl oj^w ttiJui*!*? o# 



!n&»y vary from 104 hoturt down t© 94-l/S» 8®» 79-I/S, aafi oit« teat 
M*l/2 bourt \wkt on •cuete oee&«loa im vat paid subttiintl&lly tht s«a« 
aaottnt, a little a^r« thaa 199. On on« of ttt9 payrolls, July, WfM, 
h» va« given two eheeice for hl« tvo vtoks' work of i»83.90 eaoh. A 
vltneet for defoad&nt testified he called this to plaintiff ■ at- 
tention and tbat he should not again go over the slOO for t?fO veeke* 
pay, Thlis testiaony ie denied l>y plaintiff icho explains he drev the 
tKO eheoke eo that the other aen leho ^mrt toeing paid at the time 
would not knov he vae drawing over 4100 l»eeauBe if they did they 
al^t he dieeatiefied with the amount they were reoeiving. 

Plaintiff's testimony is further to the effeot that froai 
&e]^testl»«r 2A, 19S7 until about January 35, l'^30, he n^yt^r made any 
demand or said anything to defendant that he vae entitled to aore 
money than he vas being paid as shown on the bi-weekly payrolls and 
that the reason he did not was that he was saving the aoney so that 
in ease there were slaek tliMe it eould be drawn against by defendant 
to pay the sen. 

%he evidenee as to the making of th^ oral agreement in 
ftH^toaber, 19S7, is that plaintiff, i^unde and Hueeby -«fer« present, 
the latter two representing defendant oospany, and, as stsited, there 
is no disagreement in their testiaony «zeept on the point that 
plaintiff says there was no limit of $50 par week placed on the 
amount he was to reeover, while on the other side, Huseby, who was 
tb» production man and superior to plaintiff and Kunde, and who had 
been in the employ of the eompany for 43 y»ar8» testified that the 
maximum of ^50 par week was placed upon the aigiount plaintiff was to 
receive and this is also the testimony of Kunde. 

On the trial, on cross-exajuination, Kunde testified that 
shortly before Block left defendant company in February or Maroh, 
1930, he eheoked up what had been produeed in the department in 
which plaintiff was employed and that "As near as I can remember, the 
surplus was about #3,000.00, the accumulative. That consisted of 
various parte of grand piano. 7her« vrez^ some complete cases. As 
to how many I would have, •»* to trust my memory, I could not answer 



It tin 909 hKM ,&\X*^ •«& ,t\i*^9 •* mreft n'MMi H>/ »a«t vx«v twB 

^9ft< «%{tft, ,«ii«rrvRq ««» 1^0 «ft«> BO ^9Q* tuuit $ntm 91^11 « «#«l>Mtt 
A .tfOA* W»S«« !• Jfvnr *»itft«w Mrr till *wl KJtfOMie owt ••v^ mmv b^ 

«!» W9%b m MMX^ca oxiw ^ti»ni«X<c XJKf ^iiMii ft! i|«Mi9««tf •Jtiir »im[ 
tMty Mi> X«£t^ ti •fkiflUiMf 00X1 tmw9 •§tUMtmh ftw Mi wMUi 9o« »XflMr 

^m «»«« ii»v«{i «Ml «CS«X ,«ft ruMMAl tMtti Xitett VS«X «M^ . J M 

•YOtt «f hf»liHa» MKW Mi »Mf» fBJiiii«lttlk •t wikMtXfi* *Xst 19 iMmmif 
hum iiiL»K%Aq xi:i*«w-l<f oMtf iw awOti m Alm[ tnlaA ■«» «f iwi«r XttM» 
^.»if» <Mi %9maL twil siUtm •«« «! imm mmt t^m blh «al n»%M9n. tii 9mSt 

-^bSttil»!h xi 99Mta^ ttlCMft *d ftXM» *i «Mltf <»«Xi WIM Vllftlf^ MM ml 

,ti9m MJ? ^MSI of 

nl tflMi»»^38A Xtt%o f'td;? 10 ;ftAla(M tit mt 9M —m%bl'9% 9sn 
,VaM»«q aavv xdMffH *m «*«fl ^%'UitulmSm t«ifir si ,r$l«j: ,vMlMi»i*» 
vx9tsa ^h9t»t% kA ,J&4u «^A4m3(» tmAtafita^ nfiUmmwwtm •«» «£f«»«X wit 

»{(^ no J^e&^Xq iMv X9q^ <^« to ^liiiX m a«w •miCt axM llXtfi^XAXq 

a AW adw ,t)tfMiiH ,«frl» VflMfta •«# ett mllOf «««r«M« o# »«» tJf ^jumm 

£«ii odw &1W ^9tnaft boM nimiMlxi vt %9ltnm Aba am JMi#M*r»c tiV 

oif» t&d3 &9iriti^9i ^a%mf% a^ tot xMiqMO tidt t» t«l<P«» mI^ aX am^ 

ot ftjMi ttMUfilaX^ itanmM «tft OTMp Am»X« mv Jmv %•« dt4 t« w«/»— 

,9bBuX to tfi««xt9«tf Mft mXa 8t uM^ ba» vvrxmvi 

^hmMH «e t^ottRtfsH nX iWKpw* fjBiy)n«t«& rt«X 3l««Ki wMtiMl ^Stt^Ot 
nt fuamhim^iib Mtf nX JbM«tt«q: e««Kr Awtt #«tif«r qtf fi««6»(to wf ,0501 

«. .-:>««» A!fa,rrttx:r,n awMk w mrjiM awikrif' .iUttLle hmamu tc itt*CiMr amXlOMr 



thst oorreetijr, I Aid n©t aake a vritt©n m»iae3*anduiB of It *t tla&t 
tiiM, th&t flp»r« ifa.6 in ay iiticsiory. * 

flun dtfenae Interposed va« (1) that pl&latlff h&d b)&en paid 
In full, «uRd (2) tlSfct Five Xe«r Sit&tute of Llal^&tioni! barred plain- 
tiff's elala. At defeitdaafs z^queet i^m court iastruoted tli© Jury 
that defendant bad pleaded t^e Statute of Llsitatione and tlierefore 
plaintiff oeuld not reeover for eueh amount «, If any, as they found 
l»ee&ae due to hla "vithln five years before ^e cosuBeneement of thle 
suit whleh was on January 34, 193&. " 

(1) Defendant oontende that the reeord dieeloses plain- 
tiff has been paid In full; that the bl-veejdy payrolls nade out by 
plaintiff, eoTerlng: the 2® months he worked under thft oral ajfreeaent 
of September 24>, 1927, shows plaintiff vas paid approximately *99 
and soiae cents every tvo weeks and that this oourse of dealing be- 
tween the parties show the oonstruetlon of the oral agreement 
placed upon It by the parties, vis. , that plaintiff was not to 
receive more than sSO per veek. In further support of this conten- 
tion counsel for defendant say that prior to the oral agreesent 
plaintiff tras working: in tflfeie grand cabinet dispartweat for 90 cents 
an hour and at that time worked 52 hours a week, so that hie weekly 
wages were #46.80; that under the oral agreement, as testified to 
by witnesses for defendant, plaintiff received approximately l."? a 
month more than he vas paid prior to ^t&t time - about #202 per 
month, while under plaintiff's version of the oral agreeaent, plalik* 
tiff would be receiving 1674 a aonth, or an Increase of approxlBMitely 
1371 per aonth and tdiat such result shows plaintiff's version of the 
matter to be wholly without merit. In this connection we sight say 
that plaintiff, during: the time he worked under the oral agreement, 
drew $6,066 as Appears frooi the payrolls aade wit by hla, snd in 
addition to this sum he seeks to recover 110,407.20 more, or an ad- 
ditional $S7l a month. 

On ^e other hand, counsel for plaintiff say the Increase 
la pay which plaintiff claims he was entitled to under the oral 
apreement, is entirely reasonable in view of the fact that the 



-^- 
toMt iM $1 t« MA«unMMB«ii n«#tJKir •^itfii tern hlh t »\tt9wtx>9 stun 

" .t^oiM* tm nJt 9 mi mfslt t*j(T .MBit 

-ffijti^r i^vrttcf «r«i»i»a^iflri.t ^« •rti#«#«! tmmi vvit ««i» (s) Am ,xxtft <ii 
tijfi 9at k9i9a-^mni tiUMto «£r figp9t n'titAftftslM fA .attfo v'rtit 

•'tii&lSi »999£99tb e^'X«0««l iMfir J^AM 9hn9tll99 iaAhP9\9^t (X) 

<rf futi 9h9m 9li«tiM^ ^St^mr-'td *ifff itdt tlX*t Hi ^tm^ nta aAd ttu 
\ X«i«t« #»i^ tnh9v htnt^o^ ^H mttftimm 99 «ffiil Brtlvivo« ,lti9irjt«lir 

#A««i««V9it Xm« #<!t "to a«it9tf*0r*««e fu^ wviAi 9«itt/i<t mCV nffvwt 

«t f0n ^m» ni$^iMi<i f9d0 , ,Mtr ,99ti'imq 9tli t^ ft nt^ ft«o«f^ 

•r*»Jnoo ilil* tc tnoq!?iit i»rftntirt nl ,i*«v toq <>«» hai*^ 9r«m 9rt999i 

STnABMrtniA Xai« ftilj' 9$ foit^T t«dt T«* tiriybr!»l«fi t0l XMAJir»» OAlt 

7Xir«^ ntd f»At m ^it99m * nnuiaA M j^vi^av «vlt ^AiCt t9 Nim naed 0Xt 

o9 h9i'ilt»*9 &» ^fttm9mc:gt» iann 9/tt nuAtm tM» (Oe.iMMi •tvw ••SUw 

& Rif vX«J<»i^e'^'1« ft«vl»»#t l^Xt»«l*Xii «fiuiftir*Y»ft -tol «Mii«iitlw t^ 

lAn- soa^ *j(»tf« - wBi* #A<1? «»t t9i^^ hlM4 wmt M fuuit trww dtnmi 

-iri^lx ,^ii<wr««w?fc« r»^» «ri» t« «ol»'r#y ••l*Hti*iAX«jr -wiifflB wfiifcr »iW/t«a 

.if to n<>/m«v •<ltitiilJiiX<f rvMftl tlt»«^ ii»0K fAtfif ^tt* /ffno« n:«it <F^^ 

- ; em tt9 »#««« OG,T0*«OXl ^ [» f a » » - A «t »*»«• «l Mirt •!«* ©f ««l;Mii&« 

,rE?«Tft«T a JTW^ £»MOktifi 



-6- 

thlrty-oM men ®mploy«d In thm departe^nt ¥her« plaintiff >.ork©d 

must b« paid first befor« h® woaia. peeei-w* anything, 

J'XAlntlff testified h« n&de no clala for additional com- 
penis&tlon during the Sd months he worked unS^er th«! or&l agreeswnt. 
This faot, taken in oonneotion with all the evldenc« In the record, 
V9 think, clearly ebowe that the verdict of the Jury, i4&ieh a^i^arent- 
ly adopted plaintiff's version of the oral s^x^eaent, i« a^alaet the 
manifeet weight of the eYldenee« If this vere the only error com* 
plained of, the Juc^stent vould have to be revereed and the o&uee 
renandeft for a nev trial bat we are of opinion th£t pr&etieally all 
of plaintiff's claim was barred by «ie Five Jfemr tit&tMte of Limi- 
tations. And although the eourt instructed the Jury, ae a'oove 
ctated, th&t if they found for plaintiff they could only award eueh 
oonpensation or eueh amounts as they found beeame due to his **vithln 
five years before the oonA^aeement of this euit which ^ae on January 
£4, 19S5« * The vex>diet 1» in the teeth of thie inetruetlon beoauee 
five yeare before the eoiaMit«e»eiit of the eult would be approximately 
January 25, 1930, and plaintiff earned nothing under the oral con- 
tract after January 25, 1030, 

la ^mgr V. Cinn&B^n . isa til, 447, it wae held that In 
a suit bz>ought on an oral eontraet to recover vages at #5 a veek for 
eex^lcee rendered frea August 1, 1982 to Mareh 30, 1892, the Five 
Xear Statute of Limltatlonc, which was iaterpoeed, barred reeovery 
for all vagee claimed to be due five yeare prior to the beginning of 
the suit. In that ease plaintiff, a eieter of defendant, narked for 
hia on a fara and oXaiaed »5 a week for her service i. She sought 
to recover for a period of nearly ten years. The contract wae oral. 
The eourt there eald: "The appellee [plain tiff] wa« only entitled 
to recover for eervlcee rendered within five yeare prior to the date 
when the suit wae brought, *** unless ahe could ehow eoae new 
proalee on the part of appellant wuffioient to take the o&ee out of 
the Statute of Limitations." Defendant requeeted instzntctione on 
the statute of Llaltatioac ^lich the eourt refused and thia was held 
to be error. 



*n»» lAaotttb&A not «i«I» OA «*«a «m( A^iti^te^ lti^Al«iH[ 

I la xliAel»»«tq tan* iK>init« lo ot* •* f«ii( JAk%% w«» * «©t A«*iumm 

«j«jta lo ^ift»#^ iu»x ovit •<« t<* A*flfx*tf t»w B±»io tt*iU;rBX«£« lo 

9v»<iA »« ,rr»t ^t hv$mKi%MLl f<UfO0 otlt 4|»ii«fiiX« btii^ .nno^t*^ 

iTit»i^" mlA 99 on* MBtootf Aatmt \iti m oliuMNMi jyMn to ii»lit*MUHpMW 

fsiunati BO Mw xlolihr #lir» •lrf# to tiio«ooa«MW» M» «««^«tf m%m\ t/wlt 

•ftWROod AoiMin^oiil «i<& to dtoot wi^r fil oi fitnm tSt • .SOQX ,M 

il^tmmixenq^ mt blttmi tlam •§» to 9mm—m9m»» •*» rwta* o'XAOt •▼It 

-ftOO X«^0 ftftf <XOl»a« 'J^Jr<^A« F^Annae IIK^OlAf*! ^MUI tOt«I «3^ VC*UII«li 

^g6€X ,4S xiMOUiV ««»ta ^04r£# 

ill tiUfiT J^Xwf •«« :ri «V»^ .112 eai .oaouMMia *▼ 3A&£M «2 

■sol ^mw M 9^ t» ••»•» noiroooTt «f JmntBeB tmm am mt t^a**^ *X«w « 

ovl^ otft ,S«*X ,£)« *»•«» of JW«i ,4 $%mi/H*^ aont *o*ioteoi •ooir^o* 

Y-jwooon AwsM ,l»o«oTi«^<M ««'» J(^A» ,««oi*»;ri»JW to «tfa»it %m.^ 

to ^loiiuil^otf mat Of teAt^ *•»*« ovit wh ^ o3 £>»iil*lo aosMr Ilm ^t 

"s-^t &Mf««ir tfAAOtfiotei^ to loJuiw « .tti^fllol<? o«*o »*<« «X .^X«'» •<» 

?it uoa «*» .9»aiT^*o i«ii "tot ioow « «* l>««U«Xo tA« ««*t m «o «ii( 

,t»'so ««w $m»%t£i09 9ea «t-i«*i not tX-iAsw to Aolisoq a tot lovoowi o* 

h9l:Sitm XJM9 *mt i\M9MttU^.l ««XX««iA trft* tAXw «♦<» »•»««• ««T 

9?Aft •«[# o* loXiiq tTt*n wi** «i<«*» ^^oitain oooivnoo -^ot nt«voeo« #» 

voif MM* vOiJt »Xi»«9 oiAi »ooliui *^ <,» d i wl M f tow f Xwt M' •04&r 

to »ao oomo til* ojtot o* »jioXoltt»o 9nAll9qqi» to tnHi« «» no ••i»o«q 

«o ««oi*o*r£*««l Aott««»o<x tiuAiiotoa «,«p«tt«tl«lJi to «9vt«»« §m 

,< .aw ttfrfit iMia &«•»%•« ««M<M M(* ifoi^ a«oJt4i9i«lJ to 9^u;t«<^M mdf 



m r^ 



Xn xhtt Innt&nt t&.m, plaintiff t«8tifltd that Ham r«ooMe 
wbldh h« lc«pt and whlah ftr« In eTldiine«, ehov the amount ef vork 
double t«d in hie department, aad that upon euch coffipletioa he was b&» 
tltlad to be paid, Th« ovid«ne« eho^s sabs t«inti ally all of th« wojf*: 
t^fi eoiBplet^d and dallvared »or« than flire y^are before t^a suit was 
bi^ught. And ae Bald by the Supraaa court In thm MlXler cee©, "wa 
do n0t think the evldenoe sh@%r« a eaea of nutual aeeounts. ** 

C«>ttaa«l for plaintiff oontand the stetuta of Limitations 
h&B no applioation to plaintiff •§ elaia and ' Brian v, 'iexton. 140 
111. &17, 1« relied upon. In tihat eaM»p 0' Brian brought ault on a 
oontraot Ujpon whioh payaMints had b«en aada at different tla«i, fins 
question of the statute of Li»itatiene was the controlling point in 
the eaae. O'Srien entered into a oontraet vlth Sexton to provide 
all material and pex^ora all work in plastering a certain building 
then being erected by liexton, for tdiioh 0*Srl«n v&n to be paid 
19990 in imetallisentfi ae %h» work progr«e$ied. O'Brien did not eoRo 
plete the «rork elaiming he had been prevented from doin^; so by 
Sexton. Qn the other hand. Sexton contended c*liri«n had abandoned 
the vork and he wa« required to finish the Job at a eost greater than 
the contract prloe, 'Hie eourt said that the l&st work dene by O'Brien 
vae one day leee than five yeare before he brought cult; th&t the 
work to be perfomsed toy C'irten for Sexton "was an entirety;" that 
•fihere one oontinuoue pleoe of work, eonsipting of a nunber of parte 
or items, ie to be perfor»ed| the statute of lialtations does not 
begin to run upon the oonpletion of eaoh separate part ap item, but 
upon the eofflpletion of the vhole. " ;.'e think that oase ie not in 
point. There O'Brien was to Iws paid for coa^letlng the Job 49990, 
ifhlle In the case before ue, plaintiff was to be paid by the pieei, 
at and itttem the work on tibe pleees was eoMpleted. 'fhis in shown by 
plaintiff's testiiaony and by the method io whieh the bueinesa was 
Gondueted. v^e think Van Tir9 lear statute of Lim^itatlons barred 
plaintiff's elaia and thei^fore the oourt did not err in 'entering 
Jtt^^pMnt In favor of defendant notwithstanding the verdiet. 



9ht4^9n «<9 iM9 Jltoiti*»«# VUilnlM. «••«• tma$mmi. mat nl 

«fiA ««« fta aoi(r»£QnM ifMw lio«pr t«llt 6ttA ,ftt««9«iq«jft alfi ni ib«f •X^pUM 
areov wur 1« lilt t-IiAi'0«t«tfMi awMfa tMMl^Jtrn iirlT .ni«i(( ««r at hmUlt 
• •mt 9itf8 Aiisr •«etMl »'u>«% 8Vlt Baity rx«« Avwriltlt ^«« *«y»I«iOe Mw 

9.-^ ,«»«!»;» t<Jll?^ ftxt» Ai tiiseri^ Mmwput M& itf AIm «• AAA .tUgirti^ 

s n9 srju* jTtfStfOVtf 0»iiift*O ««»JM }«Jtr aI ,ttmqn b^Llm. %l ,rjai •X<CZ 
^tn ,%9mli tnwH^'Wih Sm tarn ii*«4 dtui tt#c«iv»<f ii«itfw «•«» »(Mi1i#fl«» 
ni ;^nl^ HAilXovfao!) •mr »«r •iiBif4itlAU !• «riNr«t8 tuOr to owltiMf 

^i&XiJitf aiJJ^<uio « solt«<'*Ar<I bX ar'X4»w XXa an9\%»^ btiM lHl%»iiMm XX* 

*mf»t> $0n btb ati«a''.> .AMttffts^e^q J««v ftfO •* tyaftflXXs^tfll aj 069tl 

n^lte<*J x^ MttA A%ov tft^sX ttds SmA$ bt»% ttmm •jIT •••XimI ^fta^K^AOO stf^ 
y^t t&i&3 UX0« tJtssovtf •)!l rrsttttf mA«t 9Ylt iiAriJ i««X -pA «iui iMr 

SJT'KAq t«» ^VdCTMSffii tt 1» :;illXtftt/ailO» ,lll|«« to IM»»X4{ «JK»««ifnO» 4MI« OT«!f»* 

;oa »f»e»6 %ti<^i.i»3lmll to «jr«lA4ift ftf^ «*iaa«tt«q iNtf e« vX ,«ficai ^o 

^mti ««»;ti %o t<3ui<i •tjMusq«« if««» 1<9 nel^r^X^ofi <iii9 otMttt rtin »1 iiXi«tf 

fiX 400 »X »$ii9 tviU^ tsxlM «v *• .«!•£{« Oi^ te «eXtfi»X«pM aiSr MM^^ 

«o««t|^ «r»i wii %ni^i%Sci9mm tot Mft«i Mf e» •m ftoX9»*0 Maifr «f«iaq 

«^«X9 mC^ ^ £>XiMI iMT <^ %M.n ^^lUttlmlq «atf «i;<»t*4f »a4i9 wH fti »Xiilir 

tci mroHa «1 cXiSf .&i»foX«DOo •*« »«o*Xi; «tf« ih» Jfwnr o^ ftMli 9tm§ •« 

»«w saoaXtwi «^ rfftXffv nX A«ii»«& »ri9 t^ M« teotti'«»t c'ttX^aXAXq 

hv%iaa Mtt9i.lt »ilsil.l to •f6t«y« ««ft2r trxt Mf9 ^KjUt 9« ♦ A o fMriM f » 

«Ri%«tlI# HX <fSf «M Mj^ 9<XJWM it^ •^OtV««lS» A«^ irX«X9 t ^TtX#lfXlUJ!i[ 

.i^AiCMttv •fl(j» «s#*mk»arftiitf<Mt tiu&flttt*ft tft «av*t «l ^AJinAiii 



-7- 



f^ Judgment of tHe Municlpftl court of Ohieago l« 
mfflraed. 



.3 sari m* 



'■', 



mm C. Van ili0i?sllee,„^>-Cxocuti»i^ 
©f the aJ3ta,t0 of -sfalj&r J. V^ 





m, pmBiJ^im mmm^ amu Mm 



-4S s4eiiv@r©4 



e^tot^r X@, 1930, Mora P. ?an iSseralice, Sxeo^trlx 
0t the Sstat© 0f iialtey J. Vaa iJ&yeUce, plaintiff, Ibrou^^xt 
mit af^iJist iteni«l i« f«Bitworth, elalialag timt on iltptimb^F 
11, l@S@g at Chioa®p, Illinois, Aafsrulroit sade a pyos^lasei^ 
ttdt® In tirrltiing be&ylnis ^'^sti dsta aa4 deliTer^d the sfitiae *© 
*sslter J. Van iJterauLlee sii4 tl'iortj'fagr tor v^vt& rofC^tved |!«p@piis©4 
t© p«y te tl-i@ os'dftP of »al4 ««5ltiS«» tl. 'fen ^iiMPslio® th© »uks of 
^Oie«u>©.u^ adbg^ days aft«i» (3at« t^srtof i^ith latimist th0x^K>a 

Plaintiff fuiPt^y all«^» ths^t 4ef«n'te«t Im® 4#fatJlt!^ 
In t3w papse-Jit of 9»14 not« imd mch «i«fsult atlll eontimissj tJmt 
ib&T9 la (ka0 ;.;'lainttff fK«a ilef'^aisJit &n 3all note -tB,4a4,ll, being 

$5, 000*00 -principal and $3,484.11 for interest at the rate aforesaid. 
A oo^oylt im* filed ^ t-he attorney for .liotansiant, 

vi^'VtBii; ft@rvlo@ &f pi*&o«ss, confessing the »etl«^ of plmlntlff 
f®r tlx« above iiftis»& aeicmnU, beiiag pria^lyjal aufi llttsfrtst ob sti4 
a0t0 and alto atACh attoTnays* fees ait th® ©0ui«f liRy allow* 

"SSjoraai'tsr on t»©tol>sr 19, 1§^, an 03?dLer imi snteye4 
Tasjr Ju'Jlg© Kelly, Olroetlng tliat jiid^aat wi^ execution l^e ©nt^y^sd 
f«y pialatiff B.n^ &m%nst i^fenOant for |S,9©0.aB suna <K>stfl,' •^Tteh 



/ 



/ 



M X 



8GI^ .A.I 6 



08 1 



j;>iZiuic 



b9tifffli»h VUVXuOSi. 



.*'» '^o itoXlUciO tjiftf 



^ ms* «>^7 »oilB*KK' HAY .1 naiSjAi htm to «c«J&w «t«r «t i^ ttt 

nifii«f to noxtojs «^ ^RitBVdtiioo ,ett«o«^{ to ttOlvtw imivtMr 

•woXXa xAfi ttitcto 9(1$ Ml K^ot 'Di^KinrotiJa ilmm ocXe Jbia» •ton 
|x«93^fi© Hem *t-- ,5ceX ,flX *«8<fo?oO no •wr»t«#«Mflf 



mu^ la©lud®s ISO©,'?! as B-tWim^u* t@m* 

iM fimtmi^mp IB, WM, tim llmlt-i4 and speel&l 
a|5f>^5«mrie# of :i«fsiisiaiit, ^ his m.tt&m^n, ws,n fll«^<l f©7^ tlit sol© 
pB*f>©8e of saitiiBg 4^f f.ms# p.m of salt ^.1^ a«id ni»% far %}m xmwp&m 

#if«a^ji% pTlm" t© jiMi4 4at® of walTln^ anqr defeases t0^femii5jnt 
Jm® -to lai® 4%fflsdietlon ©f th® oairtt prl&y t© his saotiea W opm 
BA3. m% ssi^ tmia juOgjaant a* bais^ v^t4 and ^thesit la^rlt. 

^ 'dmimh^v 4, 1^3©^ JtiOiie Brtstow ent©2»<!»4 an ortop 

4tr«ctiiis that mX^ ^dgpaont tiy eonfosstoa b® opeaM imA gi.Tlnu . 
Itaire to 4@f®n^^,«t fe© file inst^ntsi? his <an»?r«S' t© tl:s© c«EpXaljat| 

st^ftd until fsi;rtli®r or-ies' of tliss eo«rt, jiad tMt plaintiff mm 
lm.rB to fll® l3istant0i» ei ilmsand fm" & trial by jltsrsr. Or JJseeiabgr 

5, 1930, plaintiff filed a d«®©R4 for a 3«3fir» 

Gn Jamiajry S!2, 19^?, on sotlon cf rl«<^nt;lff , ^luOce Brls- 

t}0W QRter'-r4 an orier 3 trilling defendant's answer an4 oMeydng (ief^nd-* 
ant to fll« an «3ena,»4 ©luswsp on er 'bsferc! r0l5i«ttjaTy 1, 1:93? • 

'l^fm.^nnt In his aB!eaidy9«a ansp^or fil«4 Felsamary 8, l^S*?, 
atiKltia thmt tm i^twihrnr 11, 1SJ26, at OMeai^e, llllitola-, fe« laad© 
«s. :«MUTtsla ixre^issory not® in tgrritSjif , tjearlag said date, for th© 
stm of tlOpQai^»00|| 'sHfei^ intercat at Ui% j:^t® cf afiran }>0r eent pel* 
aimo®, arKl 4al.iir@ir@4 th® (Si®i« t© #«lt@i» J. Van iierslice, teit deities 
th&% h<j r^selT*^ any raluft or e<Mi8ii,l@T^ti0ik for aald tiote; silages 
that the s^^^-osed prealgaory II6.t« ©f th® daf^4ant h&& b««B pai4 
in fi.ill 1^ th® Jr««iio©d t^imdi^a-fea!-, and Xiiii&ita Co-rpo'r&tlon, setd 
e03?|>oi?«tioii feeing Mie rsssl 4©ib!toP| bt®iisfl©lsi*y and sf»0oipi«9it cf sll 
th®- oonai4®3mtioii for ■?^ioli sfeid mtote was 4slivti»®4; tfmt mM pis^rtaont 



•»o«S«fe'<{ »d? TO'J^ *on l^-^ •Kjj5tf . ni •cm^tot isq 

0^ -^jr! TifflTJbm nro •tf Aft A^tAt o^ 'tolrq #nAf»fi9t«fr 

«V)v( 'SitlffiJ^vi SBdt Sam ^t*t^t9 «u£t to "Mfito t^i&'xiA liifitii textfhi 
«xBtfB»dC(i> n^i •Ttt't ^ lai'st « "col j^g^iwli ji iwUMtanX oXll .^ tiraat. 

>l)ff9tt£ T!0HiiTian9 tmrnwamum »*4mJsiimJMii! ^fiJbiJMt •tbI^'zo rut i,.— ".>;--} trot 
*W«1 «..X ipfffiMi^fli^ 4rs4(to<f ^00 if0 ^mnn» ^9lmmm cm 9 "" -" tjti 

^q Hmn ffti 4t»v«tt to ^tm mia $» tmimim Mtm ^mh0^'^^9^ ^9 mm 
^iMi i%9mS «afi tHiiMMHU^ mdt t9 «MIM Tm&iiMrp^' A»«oqiSMt «u£r tdii^ 



ill f^l af i^id aote eoaslst«>d of ^^ p^m^ii% af ISgC>c^«u,' in 
(mjdx 1^ s©14 iTsmmo^ af»4i«j«,ti« te pia?-ritirf's tastatar, and 1t^ 
Ifee li»Mn©s to ^aiutiff's tesstator ©f |5,®U0.«^ tmrth of ^o&k 
ef asld I*©iiwood ^ns'licati®, said stoefe- Ming i^ee^ii^td and a-e^^^teni 
tssr plaintiff*® ^«,st&t©r in Xlwa sf ths Muyae^ ^m <m aeiid a©t«j 
ti%t said sto©!; wm is^@4 a«d a«e®pt;@d wltl'i a p?ega@i©4 untoystaiisl- 
Ing tJiat th# plal a tiff's testator Bil#^t im.v© the ri^t to sHiit^yi^ar 
«&lcl. atooJt ^len siild 33m4io«t« ima la a wosltlon to re-purofeas© th& 
mm&i that t^@ su|>|}os®4. prcaaisaory not® ©f Mfmid&nt sros»®tal4, lima 
pp@m3ia®4 to h&'^@ hmm mrr^nJi^Te^, ®n4 4®3troy@d on this isgiiajic® 
m^ aoc6ptsra&9 of said atook lay iJJualntii'f's tea-fetor aasi tfeat 
#»f©n^:tent es0!M®4 this tmX Immi don®, yntll his wlu advtssd to fee 
#$i!t1aNs,T7, s.€tij® tSst® aft@f» It&s ilUnls^ of pl&lntlff*® tsstatorj timt 
iief«a>iant ^cj^i'Ved no part or benefit of ths eon^das^tlon for 
#«ieh tim prmxinmry aote sued vip^^n hsi^la wsta d&Hiren&d; tl^a-t tfea 
Iisanwood --ytrftrlleat* }:>«i4 asald prom.tsgoT^ n&%& in full, a.i af05*s®sld» 
IS^OOO.Oi;- iB ©a,ah and i§|Scxi»oti in atewk as w3.ll »©j?© ftilly apfj^iscr 
in the r^coT^ of tlj© Xi'smmxjd isliyndiciato end by ifitnessets ha.^iig 
&now34idl||^ tJiereof • 

AJtef^jviEint's a»^B(40ti sinsrecrr fttrthep aiXegerf tlmt th.@ 
ii^p^ii@d firoalsaory not® of aefefifirmt w®g ofSflLy ocn^tlom^.} t^;iat w^wsa 
said note ^as gxawxited and cisllver^ l;pf hiM, oertaiii psrsona, la- 
©luillntg plaintlf-f's t©atat€MP arsi dafea<iai%t wc-re lHtQiHi-st@4 In pr©- 
earisg titls to BiM9 44.'C' aei^s of i®ii4 in feiry, InOi-snsi't f^a* tli© 
|fi«3Ppos« of fotmii!® & e«*l>oi%tl0n, t^ h@ knoian as %h^ Iromtoo^, 
%ii4ioata, I^EPon^^i iTileh aald laif^^i/t© be miMlvlOed m»4 gi^lil; 
iSiRt said ip»ai^ ©f imrwrna ^9Tf> T&lsXm 83«ney ^ that tijn©, f oa* 
t3b® pvn^jom #f pRurelmsing tttlt I© ®«tid .pirepeptyj ^bat plaintiff •,« 
t<sgt&tor a^TsM %c> 1% ay}® of th»©rigii3^ laTs stops ami agresd %o 
sArmmn t^a mm of liO,fe&«o& to tl:^ ptqpqm^A s3m4io&t« for mioh 



|»#0£f tlAii fle eub •ahaXmT iif{^ to iii»il fii fcod'atfe^;^ ti*1:%i^nii»It{ i|tf 

'iiis ^ki^ifsnistf^n 0t wuiwinwi s^ ni ^m tsmtAa^ Sittm- twin aAwKTs .tJbm^ 

«i£r o^ MsitU^ mm wi Il;r<a/ ,aaui:> i»wf tad niifir JtoaattM tf^n^i itflt«ft 

«d^ t&eit ^Jt^frtmtSab »a» iii«T«cf notiir »mm wtoa T»»KJawBqi[ aifir JliMir 

- "" - - t^i/i «nr<«[ Xli^ «# :tBmu tU ,904OOft|«l JbfOi tf»«» ni Jd.aCMi,«$ 

9da. Ir:^^^ M^oXX/R tetX}<Oft ^MKMSt MfiOVMI ll^iM)lt«lit«a 

• die 



igmdic&t© sdioiaa. ,^il t@ lm}or&j©iES?.t#, ©r if said ^yt^icntd si^wad 
fall %& obtain title ^ «pdd land imdes* so»e fe«3 of oi»^jst»Rtlaa 
tor m^ pmvom^i tbat plaintiff's t@s%ator ait4 4«if?sjitest, as mH 

mX^ mtn& ms lm®®d, mid tew that «al4 M^R^€>«£s#at &f 110,0*^.1^ 
«ta not f©r th« 'la^id ©f def ©itdant l»it fss* tla® ms® ©f tbt pf«j3#a«d 
gyadle^t© in obtalnin,!^ %iU® to m® ImtA edt^feml^ 

i*8f»»iMit*8 aii©iyiml an^imsp tms*%kmr &lltL^@ '©lat is eoa- 
8i<iisi%tioii of mi4 &^amrt©««»it &f aiaijl Il0,u^,€i» fey plaintiff* « 
test<n? 15Q ISkj p-mpoaed apiilieat®, tt ass t®ntatif^Iy wfk'l@i»stoo4 
lajT t^i# @s4gliiaX lii©op!r>©3»1»ora if mid ^iidicat®, teat ^S^sasofi 
tgr ■^asam of i^d adSRuaceiaent, sh«mid irNse-^iwi a \mm$ of IS^OOO.Ol, 
tefe© p&ld mit of th© first profits of saia -^naicr-tcj nm.% m 
fey S6, 19g7, tins piNapoj^d I*«isw3©d ilsnndiost© sf©r?JBe,i4 m^s ia 
faet l!ic©n>«.>s^-^t®4 tm^lsy th® laws of tJi© :itat@ of Xn^iiasm, aii4 ., 
that ^0ftiy th?ir©®ft©s* aald Xroiwjocl ^adtaate a©c|\iix»«4 titl.«-' 
to ^9 40i^ acres ©f laa4# for ;*iieh piiiHshait of lm4. plaiatiff's 
tsat&fejv te4 a^smneed tfe« ©.fo3*©»a.ii mm ©f IXii,ot^^#00| t%mt ©13. 
©bli^tiona of a®f«»4»Jit upon ^sldeli »e14 mst« ^ms con^tloaed, w@y« 
t^-©^ f^aiy p«rfi»*«»d 0I4A 8fttltfi«d aad Osf^sOg^t wm r^mawA 
©f isOX pm^mmX liaMli^ cm s^M not«. 

^fondant's e£!®»4«^ «tts?f«i!' fwrfth®? eaiogts ttet, f©r * 
fufi!h»r iSRii 9®mmt« 4®f«ii»a, tli© «a«»® ®f m&titm 0tat®4 in tfe» 
©«a5S\;laiat did not aoci^* to pl&iAtiff ^ my tiK© within t«»i ytaj^ next 
iJufoiTQ tfe® Gc»;j®«iesE$®nt &f ^l0 action} that tla© aap'jsomed pr&^&s&r^ 
not# «»f dlef«!i^iant h&T«ln m^l njwm is ctetssd a«pt€sbw 21, %m^; 
timt aaifi not® is in m^m m4. figures m sXl©g<54 t>r plal-atiff and 
oont&in^ a mnwat ©f att©im#y to mmfmB S^W^mt " at angr tim^ 
hBTmttm^^t tlmt at th@ ti^« of tJa* filing of Shs 4®cXamtion hei»ein 






Her* Y 






'^ i»<!>rc( Ma ,he*«f tor «^oit ftlM 
etif <to^ #Dtf tiiJ«e«iii'tet 1(0 MV «ri# «Mf #«<r tMr 

)(tf*ttfi *wma& b^ut^CM «•" 

to tmmopngftM blem to ttoMtmOiU 

,j^« 1 e •Tif'oAY i)ltnd» ^ftmmstmtfftB him to noua&v y0 

ri5 SfneiS : '*€ *!» t» «<f Itorfft Jhrf It «m» to ttto bhtq •ef «r 

tit 9.m'ti*^r<to'iM •#.99ii:fVtt J^oawvMmEK ftMOctflivt •(& «V(fktl «89 ^(jdl 

« ©/(^ to r «sJ;ior Jbo#r «' ♦a«t 

sXiTX.^ i^xtaptua lt«^fi^JtiMiK £<»o«chkI ^i-na Te^tAs^railsf \I.rx^ila ituH 



l»tf 



e»ttJW^fl» 

Jhrrfi^Xf^t IS .sir irn 



f.,^^ ' -^ ^< 



to wiaitaTiiq datdm t»t t^ 
" o tg&e JMjHNnNitji p 

*i»fon him no '^•/ 



/ tt» iffiotiiMpicfo 
:iXHt t*^«^ 

;i*. .!- yit>p<tti<f UGn to 
"^'f^ffjfi *mw9ftn li&^mnti e*tfCRl«t«ta(i 

^Aif} 1, »!)«• to ?.:;:■ ;:rO: . ,-..--arf 

:• - ■■'■ . ' ■■ ■:'>:.■■.' "A Jf^-r^ JklMS Rlt'TKi ?;". ?<.-•:<*/} tO O^OI 

law* tl , -J' 4-f j»'-XX«j ii »»-rtfsit M» ft&votrni ui otow ilttMf tatr 

owl*- trt« »jft • tftsp^Mrt etetifoo oiT ^ji«rto#*ft to trmnm & 



5 '--•^- . 



no e^ia© ©f aottea ©^ist^d unOar mii all@jp4, net®. In, ttmt 
«ms® of aetic^ mi hs^rm^ W ^^© 3ta^t# of Ufiiit^tioita m 
m^tmtmw lit liSS? '^mt lio seticia mg l3i»oM#i.t ^ plaintiff <»♦ 
^ksa* tsatator afminst A®f ssia^^t irpc« gait Hot© mitU. H^n fillip 
♦f this mit ©s Oetsobti? 1% vsm, aM that no cis^ygiir^iftess 
«sdl9t vfMn^ %lm rimnlng of Miie Statute of LmXtrntlomM w^&. 
Im tolled, and that 1^ ir$j^t ®t th© foi^^iBg fsti: plalamtf *« 

ii»f ?5Jfi^i^a!it* a a®i®ii«l0«l miwm^ 'twpnt^T B^tm "^at @a 
«>$t©bi3P 1©» l®^j ladfpsat ms tmi'mB^ hf plaintiff ai^inst 
4®f9Fi4iBt upon th9 siIoT^fmM mxpmmi. pmmi^mt^ n&%^ of is^^Kd- 

o%taiji©4 ©v«fl? 4®f&iia»iit 1:gr his mip»«3mtm^ m othmrwlmt fi»ior 

to th© snirmiag ©f tlw Uta'feit© of LlssltatLoiis itf^^lnstf asid alleged 

s<mt bgr ftoaf9««A<Mi sfoi*©0»,l4s that imtli K©v^l)^r IS, 19», no 

i»« Isauod l»3P«la5 ^^^ s&l^ p&mr of «itt#f«iiay, Ij^ vlfte© of 
m® Statat® ©f LSfsitiitiona, !m4 e^s^lJ?©*! tssa jeairs after X%9 
mmmUon, on a^t«ab«r ii, 1©30. 

a^fonORnt's aRtendtea Rft«wii» ftatfts tlmt for a fupthoj* 
«»sl sKSimi^ate asf^mM, 'Sie «ad*l mip;-*oii»d pp&minmrr r©1s« ef 
^if infant was tmim. emm^ mtm mtm«lXanm^9 pB:peim belonging 
t© plaintiff's t0»tsatoi» at th* tim of rila ^amlae; that f&r mx^ 
fmm prior to the 4©«.^ of plaintiff' a test,afeQ3r, 4«f«mci&at ^*a 
pJLiRtntlff »s ti»»fe,tor ImA b@«iii offlco associate aM ha* mm^To^xi 
fla^jiGial dealinga InvolTlag dltgiMta gond oraOAts of •'botli parties, 
itbat ^ifin^i all of said latorvsnUi^ t5jae, plaintiff's teafeitor 
%&yrwp i»ad« s^ tSflsasnia^ Mreotay or ii*iiroctly xtii>m, ^ftnaJmnt, 
«itli@r ojpally or in writing for oald llii,OO^.U^» as s^ti^nM 
i» $mi& aeto, nr for e^ part th®p©of , or for «iiy intoTrnt tJierooai 
tfe&t 8®i4 fsMsts vm^n 'mofim to T^alntif f ^nd t^^®t '^11 iioto. i?ad 



^aixi\ w^ xttfMB >»9«i ^m ft'Cfif tn 

9i» um»9m4mU &h tmt» fm» ^t^SI «&£ 'r^r'-;:^ :-:' nc to 

na ^iii\s sfiiT^e ^^atnsfi nmmttfi htimimM ^^tn»hm\¥i' 

- jj?. «: :r "Jo T«**ai *"^^ «* l»^fWt«p» "WVftn • {Q*on 

oil ^QCMZ ,«l iMiriii'yull il*ref i»& ibJtsm^<art^. r. o ^ JToKH 

iEoi£NllA a *rol^ tf^'ii f'^^^tn '>tmmrm i^e^neMR ~ ' 
^Jti$0aU*f iK'mx*-q %i^omtA iji'^mi ^ 
|!«A ;?«.':?jt;n?*teli ,'TOi'?.^a«* a *t't ;*' 

'— -■— line t*it$ A<«i ttt{?r. -'^••' *■ . p ^t'vi'f 



Oattbtitil"! that a«f«ft'4aiit ^^Fily h^l^m^M tsm% pialatlff pi^^ii* 

of laa^ la Sisjpy and of tla*? Inpnwc'«>4 4yn41$at#» itiieh wa« if^90>sp92p» 
at@4 far tli« |;«KOnp^s@ of saiMirl^iig and 4®v®lopii5g ^M lari4, 
Ij^maua© plaintiff 4r©T0 lif said lari4 witii hsr Jsislmiid* 3ii30# 



iisf andtent* a ®H€m4#d aur^er :hjirlSx^?' smtn f&TV& tfeet ligr 
r©aaoa ©f ^i» fgi2.«2»9 ef plaintiff's %«#te.t« to ha-rs smdto an^ 
dtetaad iir>on dafeaiant «ii^i@r tlia ^l»gsd mste jki.«n3, ^oa ber»3yri, 
#i»n jioccnsntlnge irotre iwdo ■feeti^en said 43©#<^sfld ami the d®fi0«|p 
anty ssjid 1^ .z^(^3Q>n &f ^ti@ faet Uuat Oturin^ his i if® time* 4imm.m^ 
^r^eted all his 4«(Piaiias 64me€i*Rlng said note, to ttm tse^fm^^ 
%iiMcat«i, def^fjn'oumt was li^ to balleva and 41^ f^ly i^pw?R ® pi?*®- 
iug3|*tloa ^mt sal4 not© «&« 6a»K!#leKl ^&n tOi© Cieruiltl0R» uj^^sa^ 
^^aioh It was dellTspfKi ihI»« fxilly p9'r§art&^ misl a^tiffied tagr 
l»gt^'^fit of #5fOuw*oo ijfi Qftfllik mid tdbMs dait^a-x^ 4^^ «b«&.^tairtGe of 
stoek of tlie Si^oni^^d %ndieat9 of ^-tis facte and, t^ieit s^f%»t "mlvm 
of |3,4EK3©.0C^I ^3at by ▼IrtJue of all, the a^ts ajf*a co£uiiic% of 
X»laiRtiff'a t»st8!.txsi* ^-HLng hla lifetlm©, defenftenti mi,& lall#4 
Into Isactloa aM took no 3t«p« to 8«w»ir« ths reiaii^ ©f , ©r '&!» 
»90js ppoof of th© aetaal ean^ellation of lald note; whaf^ow 
|3lsintlff la «stopj3«d froa ajagr mttmspt to brlBtg this not« t© llf© 
£m<l to taks Jua^«iiit thereon* 

A @otle-n WHS filed f^rvk&rf Xi^p 13^« by l4t«lla F. Ik^t, 
1^ li«i» atta3rai^## for an 0i*5l©i* mlJStltiiti^ hss^ a« p«si^ plain- 
tiff In m.^ii Qmim and likaidse substituting hea? attorneys f©r 
^3« &%toTn0srn 'd%& had f^yaaanted tii© oplgia^^ plaintiff* this 
notice. It Is alia£?©d, imn anter+nl tsi i^feoiHl&nee wl.t!i nn aftl«te,Tit, 
bat SKulO, affl<lRTlt 4©«gi not si>r?®ar ©Ithsy In Um eiiatii^et or In 



««!iait »Motf«l»S ^cM iitflv UuX Mm ^efiT •Tcnf^ ';; : tvM^ioMf 

•fterutftfir tjMMr 

iQtf ^ >^ e^fts •XD^'st/l 'wwiAflt JjuJUtwoe e *;^»^>i>n&)9^ 

•4bi«i^9l> »j(^ jilts AWM»8Mi& ItiHi livmr^*^ «itftm & lUM^ 



i^XJCfsX «iiB ?ni5ifeo»^«fe . 


' ' 'vfiKWfc '^Gitfa^e©^ ft*'''"' 


0^ '500 .»150 " "' ' ' '•* ■■■■;.;>^v^*i ■ 


r- '■ o;T iiita F^ '-^ 


«»ir«tr^^ • Kvu 1^' ■' ' 


' '■■'1*)' '.sj^ .>x, ,,■ 1,. I. '.i--'n«i 


^^U o;? s- :. „.. .,-'"• ■ ■' ' 


■iJ-fi* pi '."iK-'n'^.x^j 




»,.,.,.-...,-. .,.-...4ife#rt ^u^ -- -:y» 


v.,... ' ,.- .-. ■-,^. .,..- . ■'-■'' 


■•^''■'^ .5;^©Xt!i tJir aa4t«»« ^^ 


-lOi^... , V &.<* t6,. ., .....-- , .. 


. ::o .;-:» -'Ot i^t^ir: M "^ 


'-•c»i nv terf BQ'i;r!.;;^.j^5<5ii>: 


<:;;/\' . OCIZ50 -^'ng ftt tti* 


.;.<5 X'sni: 




• ■-.■,•, im iiS£s7 t"3i; 


' . ;. ;/i 


at %o io^r:::Q^ 


^ c^l.Jt( 



1^» T^QovA^ m W6 me^ vm$Momi®Si tm to how ti^ now plaintiff, 
S*E®lla f* %ot, ©litaln®*! aitiisr tli® fi®te or the ©on8i4e»^tl4>ii 
giT«n tiierefor* ^^t thiifife these facts or diocimentg shcruld 
haiF0 fe@«a mil3Ritt«d t© this covtrt fos» eonsidot^tion* After a 
trial 1^ a juO^ asd Jitry on the lsfwt#s vm^ Ta^ tJ'ie ©rlgiaal 
d^3jyp»tl®B aii4 aJiffwsr, as i»«»ii4»d, t!i« Jury returned s rerdlet 
fm |0,O€c^«CX>» Jtistt #mt thig rerdUlct w^s based mjwii in the 
•sa^ ©f gTiaa*ie©, tlie reaor^ before ms d©?*g net Olsclot®* It 1§, 
$0 olwlcusly* Or Q^m^^vGmls9 veapdlct "bgr tlxs jury that <si^ fitrther 
«<3iPt€3lta thereon are unai^ss^ery* 

'f© tTiJUafe the trtal oourt laas i»rong in r^ffiislag to 
pdi^lt tbo 4df@iia?^t to tastlSf, &» iKi 9»t&%9 Slid no hoir as sruoh, 
le & par% to Uw Xitl#&tioi% and had no lBter<3r$t In It nt t^ tlae 

A« m.9 «fti<l in Hi^a V'* i^^^ 173 111* 40S« Sit pi^ 493 J 

•ISbe ilGtfona^sat h<ir« w^s m^t daf^isdii^ as tnjstee, con- 

3©r¥fetor, ^joctitor or jswfeinlstrator, nor as liolr, ^viamt 
or legsat®® of any ■l9c@s.a®tl p^srson, nor «8 euiaj^an or 
trustor of ai^ sR*oh h«ii», Isf^t®© or ^svlaoa* Qa^e waa 
tlrefnn-ilni; in Ms ovm rl^dit, aa {petite® of the exscutor 
Of the ost^sto of IsftiiO M. Arnold* The ntfitate cannot* 
% imst foiy or rsagoiiftbl* oonstniotl ..n, b© li©14 to a.oply 
t© tli» gmnte« of sn axecutor- tolr or derls©®.* |'aitlg;tfir v. 
Ml , lffl j m 111. A:.r,, MS; ym^"^' ILtfiholaf 5S 211. "S73j 

%mii^2A ▼• i3.ii»«y< ^s iii. S4i. 

It is emitd appsor^nt that tl%o c^^ issue tlion to b« 

<soa,si49''wi 19RS ifeftther or not tbtra «*8 a onsf enso to th& origlsiil 
|»ii@ja«int leihloh ««s ffiiter«4* 1^© prof>«r praotio® le to ©ntsr a 
|i^(P«nt «i^iJ®r for th« jjlfelntift or ^r ts^e def csn.iant* 43 ^m.s 

mid iJi ji^afaAas T. MMDjiSBsam., ^^ 2ii' M^^« i3©, at p®s« 1422 

"llj^rd a Jud^dnt 1^ eofftfoisloA im& h®Qn Qpm^ and a trial 
had, sxnl tJve ismes fotmd for the rilaintlff , the proper 
praetlce is to rhetor© tJj® juitensnt lay confession raid not 

M3 111. ito>* 3J19; Isaaiaia-Jat ^. ymfeya^aa.,. .m^ xn. *^* 



Jff^m 



;.(. -.-u ->, » .V .-.- t'^.nao R-ff!? o* f'^-* i »--'^'jK flffotf -■-•"• 
Off? rtJt R: l^ztS 8^r J--.:. - -- ., * 

jftiwis tn «t«H on Mil «d^A*»® a* f . ^^ ftirm^i 

»isl# 1^ ?j». ^f fd tKf*^^tnX on ^n .'J^ wfl^ ojt *;^f«»^ <» »1 



-ffti'j 






« rf.». v> 



XftfiJ!;^/^ "••■ --^ '>-'■' *«r.i^* :/rw:j -t© «i>^«t«iir «4|» *»'t«i■■---.-- 
j£M «^^i .;fs. »iSX •qiiA .XiiX S*S ,i?iffftfi^jpt!n-i .V :^u.^:::J^ nl Mat 
•t?|i^ • • ' . ' ■ ■■ 



-8- 

These errors which were comniltted by the tria.1 court 
were corrected by the subsequent action of the trial court In 
vacating the Judgment and entering a Judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict In favor of the defendant* 

When evidence was offered by the defense, even with the 
restriction placed upon It by the rulings of the trial court In 
refusing to permit the defendant to explain the circumstances of 
the transaction, for which we think he (Qualified as a competent 
witness, no reply was offered by the plaintiff to sustain her 
position* The defense was a complete one, both as to the facts 
and the law applicable thereto. 

As was said in Kelly v. Jonea ,. 290 Hi. 375, at page 37S: 

"But there was no question of weighing the testimony 
of the complainant against contradiction, since there 
was no contradirSion whatever of the facts testified to. 
'i//here the testimony of a witness Is uncontradicted, either 
by positive testimony or circumstances, and la not Inlaerently 
improbable, it cannot be rejected, (j ptarson v « G;lo3, | 235 111. 
284.)" M2X£la V. Carrosor 292 111. App. 620. 

Plaintiff evidently relied solely upon the introduction 

of the note sued upon as evidence such as would entitle her to a 

recoveiy. The presumption of its value as a binding obligation 

disappeared wiien the affiinnatlve defenses were established by . 

uncontradicted evidence. fao^r ^« BarkmannfCo. , 335 111. 335; 

Nelson v . atutz^ 341 111. 387. When these afflmatlve defenses 

are neither contradicted nor explained, it becomes the duty of 

the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant. E >iller v. 

aePaul Univ.f 293 111. App. 261} lailEtfiE v. ffM^aSP Tractiv^^ C9«» 

245 111. ^a. 

ffe think from a review of the evidence, there was no 
evidence remaining which sustained the allegations of the declara- 
tion, as the evidence offered on behalf of the defense completely 
eliminates plaintiff's right to recovei^. That being true, it 



^tuoo Xi3liJ odif x^ beiilimoo ©rtsw rloirfw •'soiio er.eriT 

til tivoo lalti ariJ lo noiJo^ Jnewpeacfj/e orf^t ^cT ixJ^oetioo eiew 

-. osl/neleii arid" lo iovbI nl Jolbiev eriJ 
ortu xiJI\7 nevs »©snol©X) oiiJ" ^^J JdoisIIo ebw soneWve neriV.' 

i'ned'Qqiaoo b es JbaillXaip eri Ailrtf «w rioiriw lolt ^^oJtd■oiia^s•x:^ erlJ 

i©ri nt&itiifs oi Iti&ai&Zq ©riJ y*^ fi»^«11o Bisw ^J^qsi on ,eeon:Mw 

8*0^1 orti' od^ 8XJ fl:tod jono 93'«Xqmoo a SBtr 98fl9l9iJ «iiT •noli'laoq 

♦ oifeieri;? eXcfsolIi^^qa W3l eri* ^na 

©1 , to 

■^XJriS'XOiifii iton c.t r-r^o ::; 

•III ess ,gox%? .v^ i-',o c(i t 

•■-■■ . J .T ^.^ri' 

aoltofjfiQiiaX arW itoqw ^XeXoe JisiXoi tl^nsjiXva "JlJ'.v^'iiiJsX*! 

fi oi" iBd sXiiM^ns IvXjjow bs doire oonsfjXv© ea noqw I)«i/a ©J^on ©riJ^ lo 

noiJagtlcfo gxilMld 3 as awXnv e;^! lo noi*qffli;8©'iq exfT .-"c^svoooi 

^ l>a£ici XcfaJaa stew escnelel) evl^aBnllts s>d$ twiiti Xisisaqq^eXX* 

;3S5 .XXI aCS ^ .oO,iL.-:affl:;Jii,-d5 .v %^£iJi .8onei)lv9 X^ecroHJJBtd-noonw 

esanolai) ©vijaancXita ©Esrfl: nwfW .VSC .XXI XiK: ,f;f^^ .v noeXoH 

^o Y^ii* 9J^ eofltoood ;fX ,i>oxiXaXcpi© ion l)ed^ojU>«^*floo ^aritlsa ata 

•"^ S,?£-^ ».;^^si;^eloi> ©xtt 10I J'oJUbrcov a i'ooiiii oa^ i^ii/oo Xali^t ©xl:t 

< fffP.,/;.vX>y,a^1?, g7,lfiS!.^;ia -v 322iLyji]BL ;X3S .qqA .XXl CGS ,aV.iffU„ JAfflS^fe 

ofi asw a'lerid" ,©o«ei>Xva atiJ^ ^o weivs-x iS iac«tl ilnliU ©Tsi 
-sT[j5Xo0i exioXS'aasXIjs axlj- fieniatfawe riolxitr snlniamsi oanoJbJtva 

^XaJsXqaioo osnalei'. ^Xjaried no .Ssiallo /a ©liJ b« ,noX* 

w'-i ,©in::f gniad i'arri' > /■ voost od" Jrlrji'r B*'illjnlAXq a8J^n/.miXa 



waa the «laty of tlie trial Ju4^«f to ®Rt©f a Judpsent ijp^ oba^jBj^, 
y^yaillete, aiid. is ao 4%ji»g th© trial 0<nj3E»t eoKJalttsO, no e?»ror. 

For th© i»0a««^aa li«r©in gtTen th© JiiOpient of ^3© 
i«tp®i»iop w©urt is af f liwi0d« 



MSB^ AMil WVm^f ^J. 0<^HCUIi. 



4>(i94l 



Zn He Istat« «f 

FlaJji t Iff -(/ippelXiM^w , 




yi^ymL mm 



1 H0 5 U 



th® oplnden of thm coux*t« 

Hsl^ard Ouerln, a ^rotiiey of Harriet A. Mitchell, 
dsceaself brings this api>9a3. es &ja® of h^p h9irs*at*ljiiw iMft 
lisxt of Mn, frcQ an ordor ©ntsred In tlie Circuit Court of 
Ckjolc County on April 19, 1939, aflaitting to pZHobat* sjn im- 
©XQcutftd ooT>y of a puTtx;rted will of said Karrlat A. Mitchell, 
ma and for lier latt win and testaaent. Shis spp«Rl la t^«ii 
Wmssi tiie iumti ovl&r aa tims entsr&d Xn the Pi*e1aat« jind 01r>cult 
Coii.rt8 In the causa entitled, App«ilate Court Mo» 40940, 1^ , g^ 
ISalJ4liffi ,saf .fegi1.Bl i^« ;4AlaftliBUt aaa^aMfc-- ^'^1,^. ,.ftmBfe.9ll.» 

Anna Banftftaita^ Ilarrlat taloolfl ifJXil ISlnnla Gl^mc.Y. a:laintl.f.ffl» 

oa»e we mv^ today filed an opinion affii^ing tl'ia orclar of tiis 
Circuit Court, *iolx co«rt r.fflTta@d th.® action ts^an in Xh$ 
^rol»it© Court. 

Inaspaioh as th© faots a^ 1^ law ftsw th© a«ia» In tails 
Gaa« as in Case Ho* 40040, heretofore rtferrod to, the deelsloa 
in the Instisent eaa@ will INi t^ i!b^u»» 



i^oa^ 







'■: ■■ :':a ftH fiX 


ISJf?^ OAI^v 


XS& .A %;^.XHf{/at 


,fsn>j TT»'ur T^ 


1 J 


,ii«i«*de<U 


iTiiuoo ^Ttja. 


^iximim iunma 




1 ,4»xjfe<iqA*'nivflLf.va'4 


.A.I?, 8 







-fu; A0 •^«tfo*f<l 9^ TsnlfiXabA «Q6€X «^ XJhrqA no xitwo^ :fooO 

fioi'^ ^ >,aaJUgtwA fi^niintirifi >nrtlt^m. t^ Haaa *y%tifmLtmmik 

%t3U nl •euas e^ti^ ma vaX oifil^ J>is» u^o-^'-^ iUmmaaX 



^wf%forGt for thd i^sasons fe^pslii giv^, tl^ Jia^%PKRit 
and Qf^T of the Olrctilt ^%ii:^ Is h®re% alf Irciod* 



•-I5- 






•c:- 



•rntOH^O «U ^ILlOOm LfiA X.: I'll 



409^ 



Xa H« ISstat® of 



OS€MS ? 




PXaintiff-i.fjp6ll^#it, Jf 



MZSL M. I«S928^ 



asfeiuian^'^pellee 



tii« opinion of tho oo«jrtt» 

Oeo}^^ P. Sarin brings this «^p©«l tixm an order 
entors^d In tha ProbAta 4U^ Oirctilt Oourts In a^lttlng to 
probate the yrlll In tho E^tato of Harriet A. Mitchell^ ^c<3®.«ed» 
An ordor wtM antcrc l in tha CltK^ult Qoitrt oonsoXi^tlng tills 
cause wltai t^jo otheT oausest ▼!«•, Ap|J«ilate Court <*ftse Ho. 4C940 
aM ^Wj041, resp9ctlV6fly« i*e hare tod&y fllacl «sR opinion In cause 
Ko. 4C^4& ^*ileh l3 controlling in eauaio Ho. 40941. Out, as no 
briefs or abstr&ot vere filed in thla q&U3Q, we are dlsplsslng 
tStee App«Rl for failure to oosipXy ^^ i3m rules of Uila oourt. 

'Shle ojsuse was taken on brlefe and abetifss-ot to be 
filed KoTsmber J?4, 1939. Xnassuoli aa no bpleffl or abstract Imve 
been flle4 on l^luOf of thla apjsellant and no eactenalon of time 
imvlng been a«i?«d for or gnsntedt beoauae of m&h violation of 
the niles of tlile cotirt a&14 ipp««i Is herel:^ dlsBnlesed* 



>-i.j!,-i Juu 






•XXJtUJ3 lOOO 




^Ba^OXfifi .M SKUA 



{ .oeXXs\TiA*<^a<!JU»l«Cl 



i>«rrovlX»i; >UVI 



•ShXiiOQ Mi? 1c n:..ii 



aft^O/S totl <»aijO ^ncjjov^ 9#aXX9<{^ ,«siY ,ft««fiCtt» «Mtro C«^9^ r&fJNr •ftHao 
on est ,d-ullf .IKK}^ .oM otimo ftl sitJtXIcn^ffOO el Hoirfv Q*93d^ .oH 

»Tiiri ta-ittadA to el©vH«r o« ea fSdneoiMX .OeSI ,*C <zcicf«}»voX ftolil 
to .-(oiSsXolv iiasfls to ooiMOOtl ,ir^Jtut?^ to lol Aula a it<MKf snlirj&ti 



40988 

sowMiO h, mitn and %mh oi»so8 mim, 

Plelatlffas • kppell«9a, 

%ad JAMES TOPF, et nil., / -, /" I *£,..,.». = 
w4 ' ^"\ / 1 \ 






1 




tor of tJie ^etnt« 



i»la,tBtiff - Appellee, 



▼• 



jind JAMES TOPP, •t al,, 

oefendaatt - Appellants. 



) 



Afl'f IL fS©a 



Sy?EHlOR OOURf 



aoo* ooustT. 



05I.A. 49 



OPIHIOS or fas OOUHf . 

fft« d«f«nd'xnts ^. Sai?!Vltch and Son, Inc., a oorporatlon, 
and Jaaie0 fopp, et al., bring this ^^.pix^fHl from ;iud|^inents entered in 
the Superior Court, this b<»ing n cmse of t»««|5»s8 on th« <??;»« for 
^rtionml injuries, ifhisyeia thT«(R 3\j<i>?!a«nt a were entered on tfee 
▼?rdlotii of «« Jury, «s« followti: One ju'lgment In th« sua of 16,000 in 
favor of Edwwrd h» ^mith ^« >d[«lniatr'«tor of th« eat'ste ©f E, w, ^silth, 
#600 in f^vor of Edward L. Saitli and $1,5()0 in f^Tor of i"^tmt>. Olson BtKith, 

It app«r*r« th"t on August ?, 193S, about 2iWi k, M.., «!* 
the intersection of York Head i^nd arABd Avsalc, about two miles north 
of llffllnirttt, Illinois, an autoenobils whieii b«long9d to £d«»rd L. Smith 
snd whieh \v%8 drivsn by his f'ithsr, ®dir«rd w. Siaith, n ««in S3 yes_r» 
of 'vge, 0oilld«d with n truek at ssid interseotion; th'st the truok 
t>*lth which ^aid i^utoatobile eollldsd vna driven by tlte defendant J^aea 
toppi that a«id nftoident r^^sulted in the de»th of Kdward '«, Smith 
and in;)uries w«re sustained by Imsui Olson Smith, his wife, snd Sdwerd 
L. Sialth, his son. 

it further mp^i^Tn that when the pjooident ooourred it ^s 



HaJT? iNi^lA 



THUOC 



.ITS iOO )IOO0 



tiG^.A.ieO 



1^ 



,irrxi^s Boeao kn^i bam atue ,j oAAiraa 









tttt^tHt^Xmi 












..I 



.A 



\»t »a^9 •d^ no aciKisov^ lo vano a sniA«^ tiifi^ «#YaoO tolTaqve atlit 

ai Orr-^B^i '^o ews <»if* ai ^nfte^I^iit ««0 {irtroXio? »« «TVt * 'to ntolbrBf 

l^i^ ' i^ccX- r^ET ' ■•" -f^lJBi .-1 bimbt to r4rg(i at 008t 

... k -, . . . -M no t.'^iit a»r^<5i- n 

:<0trT» arf^ oi;ro»»T»#al Itisa ti» afatn:* /'i ri#lw 4)«J>JtIXo# t«S« ^o 

rf#ia; . *»al>X©o^ fcl«»« *<ri# jQ^oT 

.tY»#^ fe«ui247#Bif» avav aaltujtJtX boa 

asv 



3 

9 olear i»>onilj!^t nigjit; thst the si id Edward f, B%i%h isho wa« killed, 
had prior to ttx^t tiaw »>eeii eapl©y«d foT apprexiaatelf -3B f#f5rs as 
laaaager of tixn «toeic 4epBTta«at ©f Ufrtd l3«ok«r & Ooliea Coaraayj 
th?t siiid Ed'^.rd 9i, Bfliith -ma driving fl%id airtorsobile la % 90uth«rlf 
direction oa York !t&Rd at 40 to 4S asiles aa kaur| tfe^t his wif« w$« 
sitting beside hia sad ??*iss s«le«pj th^t hi* son fdward, Sige SO, wlio 
as heretofore atnted, ^na the owaer of the awtofflobil®, was sitting 
besidft his aether «ith his '%rai arouad th® bi^ok of th« s^sit; that 
th#y h*d ep«at ths i»«@k-ead with r«l?itivea f?% Ooonosowoo, wiBeensin, 
and, toeemiss of th« oawwded condition of trtiffio oa Sun^ny evening, 
had started fro« Oooaoaewoo *t lltOO P.i.j thr^t it w%s approx iaist«ly 
106 milse from Ooonomowoc to Slaihurstj th' t the Smiths had, therefors, 
hsen on the road soae thre« and a half hours and had traveled about 
104 ail««j that ths ear, n Ford V-a oo«pe, w?s8 two aoaths old aoad in 
perfeot condition. 

It further a|>ps.%rs thst York Rosd ^ma ?t throu^ street 
protected not only by stop signs but also by wrning signs; th«nt the 
intersection where the »ooident ooourred is not within any eity limits; 
that OrftXKl aveatts at ths place in qi2««tion i^rs n oovmtry road, 
nacadsnised gr»vsl to the east, and gruvel to ths ^est; th-t tiooording 
to Sfflith it wts not n traveled ro'^d and ist the intersection the 
view i^ae ©bstrtioted i^t the norths® st eorner by s cornfield whioh oasie, 
»o«9ording to ?iotuai ae^sursisents, within IS feet of the ooneretej 
that there were no lights of any kind «t the int«raeotion« 

It further appe?'rs that the defendant Jaaies Topo ims 
©psratiaij ^ IT.OtOO pound vehiole 3? to 24 feet long m.n4 was proeeediag 
in a westerly direction on urand Evenue; th«t this truok ims dark 
green in oolor end wss oovered t^ s bronrnish blaek tarpaulin. It 
is el«i«ed that this truok euiieniy nnme out onto the highway In 
front of plaintiffs* southbound automobile, blocking off the entire 
ro'id; that the driver of pi'^latiffs* mitoaobile applied his brakes 
and swerved to the right but w^s unable to prevent the eollision; 



tA ar^^x dS xXft^AcaiKertqx tot d Ji^od »mi# tf*di jot toltq t»a 

XIt»ii'^uo« a fli •licTonoti/s ttc» sairitb «*• «<;^i .; ri* 

te» ttlw tiff #?>et# ITtfoif aa s^ila Sti Ov' )Y AO aaltetttb 

0ifw «0e tr^tf ,M«««Jt>? ii4»» siK #ffj<i i^^ftX** ftMT btm mXA •feitscf i^aiiftl* 

Siii^^ie 9fiy( t9lidoaio#£r« »£(# to TMtvo ^di -; 9T<»to#OT«lf •« 

«iii80Q9«lv «o«ir«NB0A0O0 #« ••vlSnl^t dUm t>if««4(»*v »<fl #iii»qe bad x^at 

^'^aitiByf xi^MuH no oiT^rtf to aolithtsoo jbtfewovo ftiU to ooii^oocf ^Mr 

tI»#«islXO<SqqA OfF (Ti tiiHt i*M*1 OOtii t« OOWOIW—O MAt i»oft>t#« l>«d 

,dTot9t9i£# «bi9i( ^A$im& •d* iriii jtotvidiia ot oowomkiooO aott aolla dOX 

^£/oei£ ^9l&T0tf hMit btt" uruod \lMd a but) »^xd* aoioo bM» •!(# ao >ood 

ni teo Bio idiotm t^t Bttw ^oqtfoo 8>V bX9\ m «•; >Xlfli »0i 

•itei^ifwoe t^ot^oq 

otf# *<»rf* (aastft grtl/nrw xrf ooXa »»«( onuio qo*« \c^ xXi - - 

l^tiMll xitv yfifn Oildtkv ian ojt fo^Txaooo ;raol)jtooa Of(# otoiiv aoiie9»tiiai 

,fc«oi YTtnu^o j(? ft*»v ttoliu^ifp at ooislq or • ri»v« fee 

i^ibvoo^- .-'triKT^ Ma «^««o tidi ^4 invsxsi b9tim*iU»^4m 

j^tiwatco *jff? to Hftt 5X «Xrf*i* t»*n««i»T:iie >■ ^ii'7oo<0» 

e-«« qqoT ofiai*!;. #«j«l)flOt»i> 9dt tnd^i «- - -^- 

lfTt«fe TWBf <0«Tf<f iiiW i'-C'J i^iiH->\'u b&HTii 4SO «oi;ft%-.= j-o.^- <,»»^*7-_-- . .<.• 

*I .aXXi/*<?t»J t9Mi4 dmlaminti m ypS Jbo»«»Too o^o &«• toXoo ni n^**^ 

9iim9 ori* tto scXiooXd ^oXi<fomo#iia jb^r^^---' :^"^m *f.t^l-^»i^lr to #flo^' 
eMf««d «id fcoiX^jr »IXsro«o*i«> UttXii.* - - -* J^fo* 

*noXl«lXXO^ '^'^^ -t« "•*'«r»*<^ '*3f ft rrfRf!Lr ts. •;< itLfJ S'/ of OftT?" >;.'. ;<0« 



3 

that hia left ftoat «M the tX0^t front @f the defen-i^.ata» twatSit; 
opposite tfe« o»b and Juat behind th« figlit front iKheel OTfe»h«d 
tC3f;«th«r aad in the oollisios «y. Saith was s© injured tjj«'t Tae di.B'% 
RSd his i»if« 9-nd soa were injured. 

Plaintiffs* oass T«s?,a pr«^03ted sad pl«9dl«d upon n double 
theory of liability: 

fix&% , that the truek of the defeadaat fead f«.il«ii ts stop 
for tb« tferou^ hi#?s|Ey, rand 

Sqcend. th^.t if e stap w?^s a^^de, th@ d#f«nd«nt, '«eted la 
direot vlolRtlon of Ohwpter 96«-l/?A, Psiragmph 34, Seetio« 5S, 
Ci?ixiil»s in, R«T« St^te. 193S, which provirwsj 

''(S) £ • * • aotor vehiolss ©nt&ring upoa or orossing 
suoh higbw^y sh^ii oeme to n. full stop an H^sr the right-of- 
way line of such highway «.s possible is»nd regardless of iireotion 
9h&ll giTft the right-of- way to aotor ^ehiolea upon such highw^sy,)* 

It is further olaiaed. th*^t deftadsats drove asid truok 
iaawdltttely in front of piwlntiffs* i^ut ©mobile. 

Dofenisont* contend th^^t J-jaes iopp »'=s ^ chauffeur tot 
A, ialftvlteh imd Sons« Inc., on August 3, 1936j» and on that day raa 
driving the defendants* truck tended with prodxioe frott Ohio»go to 
Eoe)cford» Illinois} th-t he had with hia ^ boy ai»ised Joe whom he 
wi^.a tmklng to Hoekford* 

:)etend%nt« further eon tend thnt the truek was 34 feet long 
&&d 14 fiset wide and thnt the oot^ii^d weight of the truck and its 
Qontents was appro xiaisitely 17,000 potindaj that the trwok wsg 14 feet 
high end wae ^ new one, nbout two weeks old; th?it the truek w>%« greea 
with «re%m-dolored triaakings) th^t only % sasll i^ortion of the p«nel 
of the truok showed beci^use the entire truok * « oowered with * 
bl?sok or brown tar^^ain; that the driver J^imn fop?> h»d been m truek 
driver for 31 ye^ra snd wna » iiceneed ©h^juffeurj th*»t ^opp had goiM 
to bed at 2 {30 Sundi^y afternoon and got up »t 8:30 or f:00 P.U*| thmt 
the ti*uek had not been broken in and wss being driven froa ^S to 8S 
aslles an hour before reaching the aeene ©f the sooidentj thmt the 



\( 



• 

jfotnt *t#/lft^Ao1ftt u^f If t9<n\ #tfiX« •fit baM t««ct gfl tiif #Mit 

Jbsrtrr'^xo Xa«i<v »a«tt *(f]}it •!(# teidttf tmt/% bmrn tfno Aiit •#i«o<;g« 

^»i^ £)9Ti/t"<t <)^ *^ir d#i«& mta aoitiXX«e nift Ai ban v»il#«;si>o# 

•b9ti/t'>:<' *^*v jio« tan •liv ftlif iM 

txtllitinii tc XtoMft 

'M>u ttVVJ^iJl d^;;oTif;r •fl^ lot 

je»JbiTolRi doXihr ,!:r>ei .r .1X1 B»XXirf«0 

5inls«OTto TO ijftrr Totcw « • » ] (r) • 

"-Itfland^ •« yiMmOjilg Aim to imij. x»*? 

•sXitfoAOttfe *tiyi«aiMjE^ t« taov) ax ^^ .t 

rot tM^iltuniiO « m»m i - e T »ft«c(» #«l(9 tmta»9 9taftiMWli9Q 

nil baa Uutnt ^i lo *^i»v i^«GX<te«a «il^ ffdt fcan •£>!« ^tftt ^X l;r 

«r»9l >X »«« 4etiT^ »i& i*A9 i»tamq COC«TX x^f^^^^^i^^ov^Q'' '^^ *tafttao» 

A««T3^ »«)« 3fMrx# 9if# ttidi (bX« ajfaav o«9 #uo«f« «aiio «Mt « •«« i>a« OstA 

l9a»q ml$ to aoXrxoq iXiwo m xXao #«iC# (osK^Mtit^ »aicoXoo-ttjiOY« d^Xw 

i? tftlw M^fHTo® t-^ :toinf otXifafl «rff 9Stf<30«d l>««oda i9tni »ilt to 

jfnu*!;; A fltod^ i>«iC <spioT aaoMtl. varl^fc *ai t»at lallum^Mt amord to t»!»M 

ftaoj^ |j«4 qqo* #»ll* iT«atti/«ilo ^aiiaol^ ha^ aTJ»ax ^ virb 

UAt i^i.'S Qflit «• 9tl| #««»*•» Iwa «0o« i>flw« C ■t 

ttoit flOTivb 8ai«^ as* !«•$ ai a^ioTcf naad #oii b«fi( Matnrt adt 

it to ooooa •di ^lifo^^oY avota^ ttietf sb aaXXa 



4 

la«t stop ^i«li t®pp a®d® wea at Haylesa aM GraM >a'9'@i3Ri@®s tfea.*! SJsid 
Topp h<^ aisde this aaai© trip %^ H©$fef©r«J ©n this route t^wa or tlira® 
tim«8 a «p«€k attd vrss rery fsadilax with th# T«adl aad ths^t he h*d 
or^ased Yoyk ?^ad ateeut SOO tl»«»» 

0«fend«at8 further c©iit«i^ t&^t at the pla©« ?^er€ the 
»<»oid«iit oemarred Yaric Hoad Is s tu© iase ooncret* sX^b^ while Qrsad 
<sv«Hue Is widey mnd ae(.d« of siaeadiMa with an asi^alt tap dff^saiEtgj that 
th« aoeiiwnt o«euarr«d ftbrnst it 3© A. l* %iid tb« aooa wss ghiaiag 
bright; that the ▼l»itoility w*!S aaeh that ©bjRets emild b# se«n elesrly 
from 3 di9t«iae« of 300 to 400 teetj that the d«feadant topp drove 
th« truck to York Road and, knewin^ that It was a «top street, oaaie 
to & @top aheut 3 fe#t west of the stop sign ^nd nt th^^t point he 
oouid see in oither dir«otion for mo ot SOO foot} th5^t h« ai^w bo 
oars ooaiag nnd stspted to oroea ths road at » speed of from 3 to 7 
jiiilea fttt hour; th«.t «to«n the front end of th« tru«sk wns 16 to X? f«et 
w«3t of the ««9st side of York 'liK»A& hs h«»ird a ovstfh aad ftlt the 
amash of so»ething vhioh had oellided «rith the side of the txtiok; 
thi^it he had not imt the ear lat© eeooed g«*r «t the tia« of the 
coXlieioa} that the foree of the ispeot w^^e so gret>it ^9 to toes hia 
truok to the south ^and turn it over i»gitinst the tele^a^ i^oXo «t 
the aouthireat corner of the interseetion; th^^t he henrd no horn, no 
sereeohing of br^kee or other sounde before the eoiliaion. 

'^en teetiQriag the defendftnt fopp «$id th^^t vrhen he got 
out of the truck. It wna lying on ita rl^t side, facing e^sstj 
that before the eoiliaion the truok w^^a oh the right aide of ar%nd 
aveauo going north, (fhia evidently ia "in error %9 9 rand avenue 
runa e^at and «eat.) 

Oefandant Topp f\irther teat if led thnt when h« XtM^UMl lit 
the truok he found th;?t it had been atmck at the ©ab on the right side. 

Aa a result of the mooident ldw»rd w. Smith «raa killed, Hia 
wife received injuriea oonaiatlaf of broken boaea and l»oer«ition8. 



f 



f 

Uoa SMS iummmm l a ai i -l— «Muh #« •«« tbMi q^r dot* q«f« n*i 

>4-^.rf7 19 e^ff 9fw»f lUtit a9 I>t9\t90ii m$ qlxi «»«• %tiit •btm ImUI ««|pf 

i>frii <ifi[ t/>At imm tAcrr *«# iltJtw xmilUml xt%>r m>« Jbaji M»*w «<t M«i# 

•Mttif cot nwtfa tmm ift*T b§t»««o 

bnp'fC sXiffw «tfAi« •fVMQO 9a»l owl a ti lut^H itoY^tTTvAfto tntMi»<n 

aa ^isitt iL tr-Ht (#9?"^ C08' ve 001 «•) aei#««tir; t»Jti» lU •*« bitfoo 

T otf S eoirt lo h»ftc;)fe « ji« bx^ot •At •••«« of b*#i«ti Mf nfiJImt^ nao 

#9«1 Ti •# Si »c>fr 3iotfT« tilt )• iba* teoKt Mtt fl»Ar »M|[# iitfod at •9ltm 

9d# fXat hum dum » brm9A ftd ^mA M««f !• «l^» t««« ndi t» #••« 

;ffeOTt tiff lo •I'la vtl^ tf#lw ^•ftiix** tU Amtdn v^iAimAB lo itoM* 

SlTl Ye «Bi» Afltf #A 1t4»a tti9999 Otfll ««« Vtft ^tfft #«« ikJUif ^it #«4t 

ta «i4M| i&iAf^aivt •At i9aiB%f vtro #i a«u# Acr. d#tt»a atf^ et JfSMt 
^ ,iT7or{ oa f'TAfirf •(! #ril^ laeitoifBX^tat •At \o t9A%9» t$99Atim» •AA 
.isoieili&o •cit •««1M dJ^MMMi Y«tf#« «e tMniEtf )• sal(fei9»T{>e 
i&rA «fl ^•fliT' I i(ir Met «q«T tutotfltft Mit i«l^ltf«»# caKf 

{*••• Ssl«<^^ tt^M* #ifslt B«i 00 ^i\l •«« #1 «:<eirT# •at to #M) 

tejR«» to •^kn »A%t% •di fio ««« A9att •<# «oi«iXIoo <»rf^ o«otM «bA* 

•tM»ri! Iwi«tO ee votro a« ol fX#»a<diT* oMf) .iltYoa 1^0X99 •isA*rs 

(,#ao« tUM irt^a •atn 
;■' i>«j{«oX •£ ftoifv tifA^ Jb9itltm9t x^attiA (iqoy tf^ojiteotoa 
,?>ti^ f^ti f*At «o tf«o •At t9 Aeartm aaotf !)>««{ ti t»Ai JiitrtMit *{f if»iit» •At 
slu ,tk$XXi:)i ««« li^iaie .f' d«««&.il tti«MoM *(ttf^ to tXtfOOt « «A 

,©KoXfs»ooiJX »«»» wiootf «oji0Tir ^o '|«l*»lo««>o o«lT«t«x b9ri99t oti« 



5 

while their son sxistsiR«d n. eerebT*! eoneviSBloa, from whl«h tli«y 

have prsetio^iiy reeov«red, 

^e» testifying tti« def«iitl«Ht fapp, dfiirer of tb© truok, 
did not have s. v«ry «i«93P ide»?i »s to his apprsftob wh«n eat«ring the 
interaeotion ^t York Road n^ile dri-viRg on ■Jrand sv«ime. Hi» testisioay 
al»o was takea under the statute, prteT to ths auit, «ad it v^^tied 
asterially tr&m the testiaeny wbioh he g^v« wfeiie «p©B the witness 
9t9Bcl, He testified th^st "the front sad ®f i^ ©fty ^'?« ju»t off York 
roctd, hitting th« HBteadieaiBed - -*, L?t«y oa in his testimoi:^ h« 
said, in nnnwBT to the auegtioa, ^Ymx ®«an it *<*a Jwet over the Tosdt*, 
*Ye«j thi^t ia, 's.howt thrfte-qunrtera *** I -mM olej^-n, w^y ■a#S'««« fh^ 
o«nter line already." ^ea aak«d, "And yoi^r front end reaehed tli« 
wi«t end of the eoaeTete nt th© tiawf the ooXliaion ©©©ttxrtd, or n©tt^ 
he aiBew«red, "Yes". ih«n aaked if he saw the headlight of aay %uto- 
aioMle ooaing down the roftd» he ^nawexAd, ^Mo, sir. ^ell, !»^ut 500 fe«l 
there is ft little 9l©]>e in the tq^A, «ad you oeuld net have seen it,*' 

Th« Aefendnnt Topp when testifying «.» to the oornfield at 
the Corner, in whioh the groi^tng corn apparently ©bstnioted the view, 
atated that "you eotild see over the eornfieid," He ftlao at?»ted that, 
"You oouid aee over it to n owrtain extent. It wnan»t neoesis^ry, you 
ooiuld «ee in throu^ the road, and throu|;|i the edge of it.** He 
farther testified thst v^en he ^pprosohtd the interseotion he etopped 
three feet west of tl» stop aigaj thsit he ©oxtld «ee in either direotioB 
for 4(K} #9 800 feet; th»t he s%« no ears ooraing and st^^rted to oroea 
the road «t f*o« 3 to 7 niles stn hour, 

7opp*ss teetiisoBy wno ooatrndictory and imiefinit*^ and the 
J^ry wae well justified in disregarding «uoh of it. It is emits 
evident thnt his intent snd purpose was to ?ivold ajaking »i^ at^tessent 
whioh woidd tend to show thst he w«ia in aiqr way iiahle, ;ith regard 
to the testiatoay of the driver of the truok, ^en he stated thr^t he 
iook«d «&«h way for a distano© of SOO feet, it has been held th«t 
law will not give eredenoe to testimony that one looked hut did not see 



a 

X»<f# fflili*» man ^r no* tJttrft •llOm 

<^.; :»-.i:T'»^A» iittii* ff^Movqg* tld en aXo ^prtr « tT«d fos MS) 

^osi^e'j" 'I .HfiasrA tmmV uo -^tyXtb nllrfv hno'^ HioT tP fi<»i#o««i»tai 

9*9eilM •dt ooqv •XIAr •▼«i) Aif ifoi^ XAOtti#t*> M(» ft#vt xllnlit^tMm 
i-xoT 11;o ^91/ ^& V" )• te* #ii«Tl 9/1;^ i>t»i^if»«t ftif .bairtii 

•f{if l;»({9i"«f ^fi• fftott Txrox t^AA" «6»ieii ffMf^ ''•X^jro-xXji uitl tstfl^o 

jhielt oca iuoc 18 «e!!" «JbftT»««A«* 9tf ^ht^m ULt tnqb saimoo ivXMtfii 

*,tl as*! »v^ j-^a iiluoo uo\ tM» ^h^ox Mf ^il » cl (rrfttft 

«;f«>£[t b9fif,iB oil .MojClaicoo sd;^ Yttve 9»e hluoa Mt" ^«if^ b»tf«#t 

^H '. t^M •tis tSi^uordt tMut «l>««Y «jr» d$iPmlf at •#« I^Ihl 

»»©IC o5 ' - '■' '-"- "TiflOO BtisO o« w*» «! lull* ISIHK^ Ot& ti 00* ? 

mdt ham ^ftatt^bnt hn^ xto*olfc«t#iroo ■«» tJ««ai*«»* f*qir»t 

•♦ii/p «i #1 .*i ^o ii©i» 7?f!>^f '^^'^tuilj «i fe»lflt»tft Xlw mv t<»t 
♦n9<r»if«Je fKi* f'^^'* Movf 0* « "r»q fen* }flA»jtl aii; tjMit in^tlrn 

i>-ra»i rf#l".v , . 11 t*« V"* -•• • -"^ ^^^ wo^* ^* ***** l»J&io* rfeirfw 



6 

when it is perfectly s%ppa?@nt tb:%t If a p#r8oii ted Isokeci b© m\mt 

111. 

Iiitv« »«»n. irii^aoo V, ■Js>y.io,gii^ ||.. 393 111, App. 431 1 ae.&iii's/'vpv, 3t?*t. 

1933, eh. aSii, pay. M; Jorasfi 111. StJita. ^aa. Ss,039, 

Du« to tte« fact tlis-H the @«Qt3p«.ata of tlie Fwd mitosaobil* 

»u«t?«ined such sever© ia^urles th«t th« f^^ther, Idiwmrd W, ^itb w^s 

killed and ttls irlfe and son wer«» r«aa«r«d yaconaoldiss, mseh ef the 

t«3ti»oiE^ supfJorting plaintiff's ®as« d»»»Bds ispoti the tsstiaiony of 

th« driver of the truok, Jajaea f&w* I^ is quit© evia,«st th«-t had 

th« driver of tli« t,yu©lc oomplled with th^ r&c?iiir®mtat8 of %'he t»t.ft*«t«, 

the KQold«nt sfoul^i not have oeourred. 

J* hft« stiso b#en held in <^ similar sa^ss thnt In an set Ion 

for dnaag«9 r«euitlnf: from a eolllslon of »a awlosoblle, iirhleh -sra* 

prooewding oa St9t« highwsy So. 41, ^Ith defendant's automobile, whloh, 

without stopping 08 required by 3»hlil*8 nt, oh, 9&r, i^«r. 34 (3), 

had ftati^rcd suoh highwn^y fr©« s side road hidden in n deep out, the 

liability of the defendant w?%a clear, lever v, stR^ate, 3S4 111. App, 

556, wherein a writ ©f oertlorarl was denied by th« Supreaw oourt; 

^oi>a V. Burger . 364 ill. App. 484 j Maataiiflra v, wlltour i^uaher go .. 351 

111. /^pp. 364. 

we think the evldenoe show* a reokless diaregs>Td for the 

rights of the plaintiffs in the aetlon of the driver of the defen^J^nt's 

tniok In driving into York hwif.& in front of the onooaiag «%itoaoblle of 

plstlntiffe without having given n«y notine, ©r without p»yln^ %ay 

attention to the approaohlng autoaohile whioh he mxst h»ve eeen. It 

la our opinion th®t thle wsa the Mle or proxla?»te o^use of the ^o^i- 

dent whloh resulted in the de^th of one persoa and serious injuries 

to the other two pereona who were riding in the Ford autoiaobile in 

cue st ion* 

It is oontended }Sf epi>eilaat that the verdlet Is wfslnet the 

manifest *«ight of the e^ldenoe. m do not think this is true. There 

l» ameh oontriidictGry evidence on both sides siarl we do not think the 

verdiet and judgment ehould be dleturbed. 

Aa waa said in the enm of fe^^re. ^^oebuok .g 0^. v.- liCRre 



•lit 
.i-^ni ,T»y\8«lliit«c |is> .«rqA .III «•« %aMiSaiaU& *^ MmmA •«— 9^»ii 

«ft^ to iioidi ,»(ioioeflo9Ai/ c«ai»ibe«t sic^ir »»• iiOiit stiw siil bet bftLit> 
t« Y^oflii.t»«;r sffir ffo^tf tiuitiXtt 9fiK* «*m^alpltir ^ifnoq^tim ^omitBttf 

99A^ tftMttr9 9Http mi $1 ,wl sflOMti «il«frQr M^ to TtYlti: ftlf.' 

Bolt^n OM Hi S-Hi ttivo t^jliria • «i l>X«<f a«ad •tin a^xf #1 
,rfoitf« «9litfofi9tu^ i*9fiAf>a»t»t if^iw «i^ .oi x*«<^i<' •^•#e M Sffibcfto«ic<^ 

.qq^. .XII *fcK ^^ r-. .T !»▼,»» .TK^XO •«» tlMt>a»)4it »ia 1« t^llitfttil 

{;riu;oo mnnu^ 9R9 xtt i^tij|«A mam it4t«i#tMr to ^ivr a ajLtrt^Ow «Wc 

•WR .«?<<A .1X1 

^-^ «'fMo»otifc i^AnotMio ^At \s) fain\ ml hrn^h ifioT ataX sflitrXtl> al aic.^^ 

""'v^ piiXft^ ^ira4#iw <«)» «»&^^oa x/tm awris IPIvaK itmMtlm Mttl9at»fn 

... ^ ...9»9 97^4 litiflB •<! daistK «XXt^«auidri/« gnlc[9.W(yiQa« »d;f of a»kiSt%9t» 

"L'^ts? ^Af \q 99tupi> 9timiTKortq to «J(«i 9d$ turn mJirit t»d» aciaiqo ta% ci 

^.'■^nutal 8iioit»« tuu M97MI ••• to 4#«*i» ftift fli i»»«Xim»t tf»X«f« #]S«b 

sio^tfA Mot aif} Hi ikslftitT •TOK odw asottoa cmt r^at^ oiff «d 

•aroiftotfr^ 

utiif :ittt(iS toa ob «? ••&«»l>iv9 wrf* to ♦dsi^s' *«9tlflf/f 
^^i imdt ios oh »w hoM B9tlB diea flo ooaftMrs x^9t9Jtt)srtao9 ifoute ci 



7 

Slayton Laaber ^o , ^ 326 111. A?p. 387, s.t pm^B 3^: 

*?©*, If upen 9 eonsideration ©f the eridenee in the record In 
n. O'bse In this Oourl, re sfeould fee of the o-r^inioa th'^t the 
evi^1_«mo« «"^i? eveaijr bf^ianeed., w® 06i3.1d not, -under th« i.sw, 
s^t aai4e the v«Tdiet b«o^u3« it is t>niy ^#t# #8 find the 
▼erdiot to be ^jgainist tli^ afi^nifeat weight of tli« evidence thst 
we ar« autlj©ri«ed to disturb it, the <iuegtlon of preponderanee 
dees net ^.rise %t i«ll la tltls oonrl.** 

thie eaa« ia p«euli?.Tly on« wfeerftia the v^ydiot ©f %hm jury 
g'bould not be di»tTOb«d titliout p'B.ve re^^aons th0T«f©r. Suah testl- 
aio^y, OB ^n,& h«r« ftd$SuG«a, is the kind i^ioh should be suteitted to « 
;}ttyf ^beT« tla« judgment of tweXv© aa>n «&y tslte into coaaideratloa aM 
pass upon the f<»otfl presented, tlie dsneftnor of the witnesses while upon 
th« stand and thurelBjr judge »s t© the orediMllty of suoh trltneesee, 
the trial eourt Is thua better fitted to judge sa to wherein lies the 
greater weight of the evldenee than i» « oourt of review. 

It la further olalawd th?.t plaintiffs were jpiilty of oontrih- 
utory ne^^ll^noe. The Supreaut Court in the onse of EXuyfo r, aetf« 336 

111, 373, at p9t^ti i77, esld; 

"The rrueatlon of oontrifcxitory negllgenee is one whioh ia pre- 
eailnently ft f«ot for the ooneider^tion of » Jury. It Oiannot be 
defined in ew««t terms nnd unless it s*n b« «nld th«tt the aotlon of 
a oereon in eles^rly j^nd p%lpsbly aeglifjent, it is not within the 
province of th© oourt to substitute its jui^aent for th^t of n jury 
which is provided for the purpose of deeldlng this as well as the 
other question® in the o««e,« 

As to the content ion of defendant with regard to other errors 
oom%ltted, we are of the opinion th^t so error was ooaaltted in nilii^ 
upon the evidence and the admission of hospit^nl records, as well «?» 
the giving of the instruction ooatplalned of. te think a fslx trial was 
had »ad thftt the ecmrt wne justified in overruling the laotloa for a 
maw trlftl and catering judfl^ent on the verdict, 

F©» the reasons herein given the judgaent of the S\;perlor 
Oourt is Rfflrawd. 



r 



iCMt •:^Mi #4 «?«^ .(Kk .IXJI ^s «. 



•rfT . 

••wwontiv <fou» t« ^:r^iJtcfi&9«)» *iit «# «« tStlMrt icfati»il;» fMii 1m«1« sift 

"Kri-s^nQO lo X^^Xt/9 «i^' «lli;riJiiaq tuMt bwrnJUtl* xwdttifl ai ^I 

i:;iij« »TTS a^iMj «« ,ET7 .1X1 

to aoi#f>it sdar i ne«ifltf Dam «iY9# #•««» ni tMinsJb 

-'■--^ m xM«4<«q ItfUi tX««*Xft eX «o«it»q • 

•^i >*if*i#»rfjft o* #««o« "i^* to «onivoio 

"•»««o sAt at 9aot*e9up X9Ato 
«Toxt» ttito Q* f)Tif8»^ d^riw *fi ^oita9tno^ »rf# ©* sA 

^ ,=i>t>YO««T Xjiflfaorf to ffoi«kXab^^^ arfj^ IMji oOfiaXiXTd «iit flo<Iir 

.itoiMw odf^ ao #iio«rst><it ii«JN«*» l^Ht w«« 

^oirrsq jC ?»{|* to tifis^ssi •At tt*ft% iti«T»il obooaot oflJ -r 



Appellee. 




MMieimi. mam 



305 I.A. 495' 



a^lsiiitlff bHj^^ this a|Sf,!«^l f3!S5ga a J«cl||amt @st@f*®i. 
la t^ feiilclpai Court f&r ^S.?9 in faws* ©f mtmi^nt* iflaia- 
tUPjp br^ti^it suit aipiliiat «lef en^imt f©f m» |if»i«# &f ©®rtsalB 
isliy proctoct® pui?«jlms@d 1^ il^rQni'iawt tmm plaintiff ia tlia 
iW ©f lJJ.a.a. J3i&;f©»aajtt fii©4 sa ms^?«l? ^laitUisig mi4 
lilia^mt mB ^9» and by ^a^ of »®%©ftf anO. cowntef^Xaiia, rai-«®Bt 
■^»t piaiJitiff j^ad I3r©ach«t| a eontinsijt for tai© sal© ©f milk 
te^t^7@©ii th.© i»arti0S sad «laisilng to Imve si^stainM ^a^aaaseis Hm 
tha Mioimt of laoo.OOf ffc® ja^t^snt efites*a4l In th® tria3* court 
fe«p' lai»^, is th® ^fftrsneo b«tir©«ia l^'ws $mm*m dmmmB Bll&m^ 
said th9 IU3.^, tsfaloh islaintiff cX«i^a aa 3m smd ©wiag it. 

^t^^n thft imiPties wh«r®ljr piaintiff m» to .f«,miiflfe rail^, t© ^fm^ 
imt. .iiitTiKisil ^trN»«#9a t^stUTi^O. as to the ^c^^gQS sRia*^iiii»a ^ 
*af ^daist and tS^ ©ouyt «fttar®4 juOig^a'fc as statisd m-b«twi. flMoa 
witaftess®« WS(S"® i»«r^tt4g>d to t^jstify ^toli &.B a s^-ssuOLt ©f pl^iBtiff's 
Ikilto:^ to furai^ d®f@ntlsmt «ltl-i its pro^ots, ^Sofeiiitent Iqtflt 
im«t«as««i fmd ittitgtiiit* 4teiijs^S ©f #0^.i<o. «)th«ss» «itKt@aa©«^ 
t«sUfytog m Xmh^Xt of pl&iiitiff , stated timt tofsn^tent im& Tmm 
t^ si@» a ^rifct^a c<mtemst with pialijuiff , ij«t '^mt ^fwa.*y*t 



iXSJlk 



\ 






"^5G^.A.ieu« 



,':,]0 



Xv 



M:pxx« »»»Biuit dt^.oQttt •(»- fttMtwr MMtte^i^ <^sr t^ ,cv.a«l^ «o« 

Si? srterfcf t t««ifc 01/ ©nrot«d oomllv* adT 



had f^fUsM t4> ^ m, ana as n ^^siq«©fm# i|efen4«t 4M m% 
appears to h® m X^ipH "bmX^ npm, ^aleJi 4$f ©i^a^jfit ^©^14 sy."bst?mt.lat» 

tli@ pH.ee to h»'^ t^mn |^«4ld •te£Ji*ef©3P'> ©l» ©tJa^r iitf«s«^^tioa ^^^slii^ 

^Hh said clairy pyo>;lJ6ts« aijd®y ^-se <£l3?«5«sta.n#@s ^fsiBOAUt h&s 
mt Xe^a l^ifds igson ^ileJi h© e©uld ^*aiais3i t^ Smamen siXs^sd 
In his ©©imt^fsOaia ©M lih© fs^aX ^erea^ts #3P3f»®d lt» allowliig ^id 

he instil pistlntiff iil3,a» aiKl tlie« is »© X#gsl imsla f©» -fe® 
allowam© ef Ms Gotmtw©Xa.U8 for I^C»»CJO^ i^m jma^ent ©f ^3@ 
lfeBJt©i|)®l ©QjiPt Is li^y^Say rev^«»©d and $Q^l^mit ia eatsr^ h^i^ 
la favcBP of plaintiff eiiO, ar'ainst 40fsa;3i?.Rt f&r fll3»1Sl» 

POfi iiAiini. f FOP. tll^JSl* 
n^rn.: Alfa ^nKg. js* OQifom* 



»AJiXa HIM fqriiGi»rt 

*4ai'.^il£! r.- > 'ito t'M'Imtufir AJUii 'i^Mi^ •««( «# mO^ «4^ 

'^ ^/<fj)#M tlvoa «f tftJUlR M«f •!»«( lit*! ^ 

wt- tiwi Biiad Xji-^-' -'■ ~* — r^ri* Ann ,X?--»v..^j.v llWnlaXq »»«ro mi 



iiȣ^ . 



•Hy;;^w& *XiA «£i3j~iur 



4X000 



BISa^^SGK -lOfiii. QO»0 n ©or of tion, 
oorpor-tlen, and SItT JsArif ^•s i '-7m«& rt*tJ 








m* jfosf ioi mum mhiitmu tm opxnios of tm mum, 

fhis is aa «.p!J>efti fr©a ?* jud^aent for I4,94t»g0, entered 
ag*ls»t def«aa.Batii la th« Slr^tait Omirt of Sook Oetiatjr iipdii a 
diyeoted Tftfdlot, the ^udga^nt :p®pt«g«nt9 (i^iase-g^a for the @oiavef«i®a 
of «t oheok dieted Ju»e Sn, 1SS6, dTa«n by t?ie Ghie^fg© title i Trust 
Ooapaay upon tiie CSity Satleaal BftBk p»M trust Oemp».xi^ ©f 0!ii«i;g5&, 
payabie to ••FyaEik i. 8K'®«aey"# wiiieb taore tfe« %li«g#d for^dl eodorae- 
aent of the paye®, fallowing the s.llftgtd forged ©ii<Sors«a«nt mpp#Hjr9 
the endoraeaeat of the Miu^^Tuls, Hotel Oempftjay re»^diag «3P«iy t@ the 
ordex of the I'lrst JS-'stloB^l Sssstalt®, *t the ^loae of plm,intiff*B eaee, 
eouiasel for aefendamts mnneuj^ed that they did not iatead to offey 
ax^ te»tl.itO'»y« 

the reeord disaio««8 that om '^ny 3, 193i, s.a eeorow mgxee- 
saeat Involving the real estate ^:% 4019 Irving Pmyk ^©uleipftrd, Olile%|»* 
T?st9 »!!ir!e. The Chlongo Title & truet 0©ap«i,»y mtm »»««€ me the eeoT^iMMi* 
The agreesentf provided th<%t the funds be dlsbureed uisSer the 
4l3'«etlon &f the illle M^naipiiwBiit %nd liortg^ge Ootfor^tlon. 'lub- 
9e<?\jeatlyi, the Bills o©rp©r5?.tl©» Inetimeted the eeerowee in writlag 
to "pay to Frsjak :^, Sweeney « |4«94S.80» Accordingly, on June 3S, 
1936, the Ohie^ss© fltle & trust Co«Sja.Bgr drew a ©heot ©a the Slty 
S-f^tlonal &nnk » Truet a©«pany .psy&iae t© »rr»Rk S, Bweeaey" for the 
?«mount .lndlo^.tc<i, S. I, Ounn «p>b then vloe president of the Bills 
oorpor.'i.tloii, 

H, w, Owens, A vlee president ^^nd egcroi? officer of the 



0001» 



Ajvii 



ii»>j-«. ^.-;',.. I , ..^;; xq'^tqO 



bQk,A,r^08 



« aoqy x^Jtiwi^ ^••C' ^ ^ooO tlvMlO tt^t Ai Btaatiflnl^ itMJuasuM 
Smnt '> 9titt ^stUMQ mm itf mraixb ^^Ui , _ ^ . „ j(o«i(o e lo 

•Tfts^q^ ;rawo«iob/t« 6^iM) b*giftXi« 9dS ^sslvolJjoi •••t«<l c^^ )o Mow 

T*llo o# bm^tai toe bib x^tti t^^At btomiMiaii mtsuitia%\»ti tot i»(UUfoft 

X#XO od* 00 <»»ite H «»<cl> ^«^aoO tftiTKf A aX^iT tqiooXifO mAt «aftX 
eXXib 9(f^ to teo6i»»«<7 •olv a%&t ami niuKi «I - . ^i^mtml imtcmB 
«C# to tftoltto irovto« Jb«« ;MiftM«»xq soXir « ««a9«0 .r .m: 



2 

Ohie»go Title #. fniB* sJeapftsy, teatifltd tlat at tht %iw0 the eh«ek 
«?•«» issued toe w«s *ocm^lat«d with th» p^iaiatiff mad thst he then 
uad^rstood ths.t the Iraak s, 8wB«aey Bs.«e<l ?*8 payee wsa th« 9ft.a« 
^re©B who is the plisiiitlff herein. He fwrthey testified th'^t be 
delivered the oheok to uuim, *ao »»a ooriBeoted with the Bills ©©I'lsoj^-. 
tio» »:% th^t tiffie, tad th«t plai&tiff ir!».e sot present at the ti«e the 
cheolc w«s delivered* 

Plaintiff testified th«t h« ^mB «n^»g«d In the "yeal estate 
tax bueineaig;** th?*t h« liRdertafces for truet oowAmaies, h^?2*e «ad 
la* tiTWB *»ad others t© ''witline the bnok due tairei owlag ea aay 
partioulnr plea© of re*il estate nnd smkn ©bj reoosaeadfttioB -?«» to h©* 
ssvinge ena he effected legpiiy »© the Title $. Truet O&m^mJXf will 
i8®we a guaranty title aaklng the property s^rohant^hle ngTsla after 
havlag been cluttered up for .-feaay ye-^rej" that he -m-a the sole ©wuer 
of the bueineest th^^t h# e»ployed froa 10 to 17 eaployeea; th^^t one 
?. J* o'Hara w?s8 employed by Kla froa Septeaber, 1335, until the 
Ifstter p«trt ©f June^ 19^; th-it o»M».r<» reoeived fjs eo«pen»«etioa S?OS ©f 
the net fs^es procured through hia (O'MRra's) e©lieit»ti©u| that he 
enjoyed hsisiiMBse rislstlone with Dunn nnd the &ille «or|5or^.tion} that 
la eonaection with the property at 4019 Irviag P^rit ^©uleYJSird, "we 
were oslied in fey Bills Realty j" th't Dunn telephoned C»Mar& the Isttter 
psart of April or the enrly part of my, 1936, with respect to e 
tax ae&roh on the Irving Psrk boulevard property j th^.t 300 or 400 
pro^nn.la went out of hie of floe each month, oonei sting of n. tmx 
ee«rth and » letter of reeosKiendHtion a» to how esavlngs ©ould be 
effected J that he did not lenrn th^nt the oheok had been issued until 
the latter part of 4pril or e^^riy in May, 193?; that he then exaaiined 
the oheok and Oj^ueed n netioe to be served that hie endorsement thereto 
w*se forged; th^t the enlortieaient on the oheek vn,a that of T» J. O'Maraj 
tha-t he did laot authorise the li^tter to endoree the eheek and did 
not ka©w th«t o»tfara ^a reoeiving it. Cn ©roee-e^raalaation, he 
testified that in eolloitiag the BiUe eorporfttioa, 0»M«re was 



»$»t99 JU^x" 9at al bo^'^^* ft/tir •d ^*dr b'»t\ii90t t)ital«i<I 

bflft ftiiLAer (••jtitMfAAO t»mt rot «ftjt9#nkav ^il #k4# "j^aMutaucf x«r 

lltv xnM|M« tavvff A •Hit Mi# 0« tiJL«9*i i>«#Mn» Mf man atMiTnt 

•«• #«tf^ {•••x«X^t tX ot OX sott l»«t«Xfa» M S»Mi imtMiwrcf M# t« 

•tf» XiiOtf «ee6X «V9tfa9#q»6 «Mt ftt4 ftf Mt»X<p» fsv iitill*» .If ♦' 

)o j^€« ael#««ft«Q»«9 ■# §ftVl«o»T ««stK*0 tndt |MtX ^tUi^ 1^ titM| «9tteX 

M( tfj'jff taoif^tioXXM («*««fl«*c) (Ki(( d'suvrtu b9X»99*n Ml»t *«l ftii 

ti^df luolf 7%eqir»» «XXl(i •(!# Jtoa aaaQ A$J» mioii^l^'x •••aXMMf ASf^fMi 

•«" «lrr«T9X»o* i(«f>^ ^alTYl 8XC» f# t'^aqrBqr •<!» tf#iiv ai>At»««a«9 al 

t»t^j»X 9tMS 0r6U*O itS()[40titX»# obkC l5j(t *;%$MiHi mlliM ^ al hmllso •x9^ 

ft 0^ #»ttq«n iftiir ««C«X ,t^4t !• ttmi xi'ts» ttit to XI'SOfA i* #«a« 

oo» tn A@e t«i(# ittv«q««i mMimiv9^ *tMn. •^tti-rti Mi «» d»w»9m xa# 

9d J^Xm»« ««ilTM w«tf •# M tmitti^mtmitmvt to t*.ii^»i » iM» A»tm^ 

IJitait btu»9l atHMf t»d MvnK* 9^ trx^id^r e«iR»X toe MJt M (r««ri {£>f»#i»»)l« 

fctaltfisac* o«rf^ 9A ttit |f8M «X9it ol tX««» Ho X1»?A t« <«Jn «»*^aX «llt 

>t«tt<d .X> .T to 9*At •/!» tf»9itf» «Mtt ao i»it««MnMiwt» •dt f»s» |J^»j»««) tMi 

tXt taui itMrfe sifS^ *»i:olwft ot i%St»l •df njitt9Hitu» #«« tii> ad i»dA 

%d ^M9itmlmK7m^9W0 no *tl ^atrf^t ««« «t«M»0 t«Mft «««9t ««« 

8J^ «tl»H«0 ,ft«lf«YOtV09 «XXX« Wt* ^2tl9iJ^ «l.t94» fc9ltX*99# 



3 

aetlng %* fels <piaiatiff*s) agent, n^M tlast t&e iiXls eerpofi^tlon 

hired his firss, metiag tbrougb biffl (0*Jiai»aL)» 

3«tt»s«l for i3«f«nd.9,nt9 stnt^sd to tJie ©suft %M ^ufy iK&».t 
0*Mar», «e^e had l&i«d the olisek, w.^s a. friead of t!ie 'Sgjgipt roller of 

aoaptr^lier, who kajasted it t© his tasistsatj that tfe« latt«r wtat 
to the miik nnS. had th« eh«e& hoeerad; th^t th« man^y w^s ohtaiaed 
fro* the iK^ak «ndt breu^t over to *h# ^isn^rok Hotel O^apauy and 
paid to C 14-5 raj that the re^aoa th« hotei fiompaay * happened t© oash* 
tfet oheslt was thsst the <*offlptroii«r kaew ©•aayn; th^t be (th« 
OoiBptreller} did not notie® the name of the i:^y«« @© the oheefe; that 
he (the GGttptreller) did aiot require Q*m.Tm to endorse the eheele and 
did not queation it ia any wsvyj thst whea the C©aptroller g»ye the 
oheok to hie ns^tiet^at, he thought the latter would re^^uire the 
endorseaeat of the persoK m^m mnm to get the moneyj thi^t the asAisti^ixt 
»a« uB^T the iai8«tpprehenaioa that the ^oaiptrolier "lasew that 0*Ma.ra 
WP.8 Sireei^y;** that »a n eonaequenee the oheok wns Ow%ehed| th^t the 
oheok which w%a aade out t© »we*ney vs?s, ia rsallty, intended for 
G'Mar»| th«t 0*M«ira w«8 hired to do the w&Tki th5<t, in reality, 0*mtn. 
<^f^ oat the plaintiff iw« the pay em of the oheek, and the isereon 
intended to receive the ooney* «,ad that 0<Msra, nM nobody else, irme 
hired to do the work foy vhieh the K»ney *r»-8 given, 

The first oritiGias leveled ^t the Jludgawnt lii th^t the 
court ehould have grsjated defend^Ets* motioa for » direoted verdlet 
beoau«« of the fsiittre of the pl«iatiff to jjr®ve his title to the 
eheok, Th« reoord showe th.*>t pls*intiff, through the eolieit^tioA 
of his agent 0»Mar«, wsa employed to render oerts^in services in 
eonaeetioa with the taxes on the Irving Park Boulevard pro^^rtyj 
that nn ciorow agreeaeat was aade; thst jmTswajftt t© that Rgreeaient 
the eaorowee wnn dlreoted to p«y to plaintiff the aaouat of the oheok 
la eoatroveray; thnt the oheok wns dr?5®a and delivered to »a officer 
of the jiiiis oorpor tion; th»?t shortly there<»fter the eheek was 



t 

to %»iJ4»ii:^ig«<8^ 94;^ \^ hafiltJ « »«» «i»»49 aili £mm)( t>«j|( acf« ««i%ett*0 
JbA0i«f$iii» B£;v xiuum •4t iettU ^»xoa00 iMNia sAi hati .^ms iafiCi 9tit o4 

9Kt •v«]| i:DXijOiifqR9w atl# flsdw #«iit (t^*^ ^C^*^ ^ ^-^ flcri^^ii^^P ^(ili Jbib 

Silt }fti{^ ^^•liBHO »tm i(o»ito •jA# 90fldtfp9«ieioo « «« #4Ml# "itW^^wii •«• 

tot t9isa*tB.l ^x^il«9!t Ai «atiw i«aikMr& ot ^if« aibMi ajw sixUdm j(o«mK> 

'- * «t^iX»<»« iSi ^i^tif lAxM tit ab oi bttild mv •vM'O #ai(^ |amJ(*C 

e>:? «f»eXo ii;to<(<k0 bam ««!««* d ««tfl bao «x*«i«> ^i^* nrltmat Ai tmba^tmi 

«tf# #M# M #li»iqtl>«rt *i''^^ ^^ b»X»v9X AeXcitiio ^AYit sitl 

t4« o# ^ltl$ Bid 9r^q ©# ^ti#ai«X(i wf# to MtoXicl WU 1© 9um&m 

»«« atMitft arft •r«lt«»Y»if« tX**«orf« *'^rf* jnoi*. x«k|1o» «Iii^ »«^ tf 



"\ 



4 

o%ah«d for CMarsi througk the g©©.l offieeg sf the i>lsm&?ek Hotel 
Oompdiiyi 1d»«t 0»M»ra eaderae?! ttie n!».a« of pis let Iff to the «j"h«©k, 
and that O'Marft had bo -authority so to do, we are of tiie opinion 
that th« proof e9tal)li«h«» tfeat plaintiff was tti« pey©@ ©f ttoe oh«ok, 
».a4 th:^t the <^ills eorper:»tloii« whish «oBt rolled the taerow dir«otio)i«« 
lttt«adcd plaintiff to iae tb« payee, 

fh« seeead point »dvano«d by tft« d^feadsnta la that tlie oourt 
stiould have grsatfid their motioa for «« directed v«rdlet teeesuse of 
tho f«iiur« of th« plaitttiff to prove th^t the oheak vn^.s ielivsred. 
The ©serowee delivered the oheok to Mr, Quna, an officer of the Sills 
oorpor-tion. >^t thnt tlse 0*M«.rR was ia the employ ©f plniatiff* 
The evidenoe showe th?«t the eheek ws«s d«iiveT«*d to 0*M!ar)5 by Ux* Ouim, 
ks ©•Mara afr^a then the a^rent of the plaiatiff, delivery to hla ws,s 
delivery to plaintiff, f-urthenaore, plaintiff testified th^it in 
i^ljril or iS«y, 1337, the omneeled ebeck w^s eithlMted t© hi» in the 
dffioe of Fred a^xdner, secretary «nd treaaurer of the Bills eorpor'>tlon. 
It do«s not appear that the ^ille ooraor tion, *hieh direoted the 
i33UJ»nce of the oheek, raieed »ay question '^s to the delivery thereof. 
It will i^leo be ©baerved th't in the at teaMsnt «hioh couneel for 
defendrnte asade to tlws eourt and jury, he declared th-t hia position 
'i^'^e thst in reality o'Msr« mnd not s??eeney v^a hired to do the work. 
It is olef^r thnt the i>osition of oounsel for defead»»nt8, during the 
tri-^l, wvt that the oheok vbs delivered to 0*M®ra, ^o h??ving heea 
hired ?*nd hstvlng done the work« hsd the right to endorse the saae, 
and th't in reality o»Mar& and not Sweeney -'!»s the pRyee, 

The third point urged by defendnnte is th^^^t th« court 
erred in instructing n verdiet for the plsintiff. Thst point h&« been 
fully nnevered in our diseussion of the first two points, 

finally, defendants jasint^in th^^t the sourt furred in ''daittiag 
the oheck as sn exhibit. Our discuesion of the previous points a^kes 
it obviotis th??t the oourt properly ^.daitted the eheok, 

ior the re^^aons stated, the Judgment of the Oireuit Oourt of 

Oook Oounty is affirmed. 



>c r>c:'*<9«;' t»itT9T fe«#o»icit « Y(tl ttnXioK jt^Ai b9$a»T^ •YMd bltmdp 

saw futif o# \-- 1 ; *aX«Xq td* t« ta^j^e td* aftri? 

«i #-d* bei%l#»«f y\ttal»iti ,»Y«aT sift's i/i .l^itnlplr rt r^'nTlXftf 

edi si Mid oir bA^icfidxd »<>« Moftd« l»»X*oa«o vif^ ,T€C>^ , 

Roit-tQqr&B 9ili& •6t lu T^Trr^r-a'T* te« t1[**»itp»t »t««it!T?!0 *>»n llo soiled 

nd^ l>9t«4'l;i^ {f'M<f^ caqToo «XXii>^ »d^ tj«iC# -: ion 6»ob #1 

.to»T»ri* t**"»'-*4^- nol#«»ffp x**" ^^^»i?•t ,:tfo»d* tdt to tOAAiinai 

tot X»»nx;oo /toiifr ini&n^i tf. »d? l>«T»8«tfo •< P9l» XXiw |I 

floi*le®f7 «i:rt ffdf tatnlpnb •if tTfw^ *«»^ ituoe *d* o* sJbMs «*apI>n«1;«A 

a9B^ BniT^d ftd^ 0# bwi^ilBt « ^w ;ito«do 9d# t^il^ iri 

ttao' !»t*b T!l l»«stM #aloci Mid* tirft 

. . l^- iiuiiasi/tuij? tA/o fli fcHTwexif. ^Xift 

HfolrAo ti 



4X013 



mSKS, LOtJiSE MlJiKS. 




Appellants* 




mmTL GooKf 

(X)OK OOUHTf 



305 lA. 496 



^ 



KH. WSf ICS BSRKS DiaLltEKSP 'PHS OFISIOH Of fHI OuUl^. 
on Jww 12, IftS®, the Gottnty Court of Cook Goimty alloir»a 
plaintiffs notion to dlnaiw the ^p«6l of the d«fen^^.at« ft^m ^ judgmtiit 
of a justio* of the peaoe. aisfi on July 1. 1959. denied aefend^t.' motion 
to woate the order of «ie»Ue«l. This appe^ eee^e to rerlev the aetion 
of the County Ooio't le dlemi^aing the appeal and in fieelinlni the meate 
the dlemieenl erdtr. The traneinript of t4ie Justioe of the peace eho^s 
that on April 2a, 19S9. plaintiff filed h^r ooaplalnt in forelble de- 
tamer and aeaed Alfred Mieke. Kuth B. Mleke and Klnna Mis*e a» unlaid 
fttlly withiioldlng fro» her the posseeeion of the premi«ee therein namedj 
that he issued a «um«one which wae eerred on Alfred laslte. riuth B.Klelte 
iiad Kinna Mieltej that the d«f#ad«nts aeiied for and were granted a 
«hsn«e of renuej that the oaee wa# tried on Kay 15, 1929, and resulted 
in ft Judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to the poeeeeeion of the 
preaieee fron -Alfred w, Klehe, Ruth B. Mleke, «inna Hiefee and Louiee 
Miake;" that on Kay 16, 1959, he (the Juetiae of ttie peaoe) deolared 
the Judgment, in eo far as it affected Louiee Mieke, to he null and 
^id, heeauee ^e wae not a party defendant and had not been served with 
tmrnmnn. The tranecript further recites th^t an May 17, 1939. -defend- 
ant! all prayed an appeal to the County Court of Cook County, vhlch w« 
illoved upon toe filing of a bond, which also ineluded Louiee Mieke. in 
the eutt of »100, and the payment of appeal fees." On May 17, 1929, an 
appeal to the County Court of Oook County was taken and approved before 
the Justice of the peaoe. The bond recites that leabelle Mieke.Alfred 



•IOC 






aoi?<» *atiiii6Mt»A B9imb ,<Rtl «1 ^(H^ fts Boa \—aib 1 

■wcMte •oik»q #2(^ lo •olfurl tift to fqitoaaa^f MiFt .i^Mo JUi?-' r^ nrft 

-•ft •Xcfit^iA «l eajtsX(iBOO i»il ft#lil V • ' f^ ,SS Xi' ij 

«v»X«y •« aialfl «A«illf BAa tJliXM .1 ktta.. ,«^ i >-rA.^.i Amumei .v<»:. itv.».ii!il 

• ts^^QB^ ni»«»dy •9ftiKt'xq adt tc iiolttM«o<2 %di %9A aovl ^&Xog(l(f;riv xlltn 

te#lilM*i Aa« «t9QX «SX t«n is« AcXif «sw ••;»• •!& ^adt {•(»«•▼ to t8A«do 

t«Xif«»il im& •Ji»|M jmmUm ,»jfBlK .- ttirt .® ." ' . inoTrt .^i>isija»iq 

Air^aXoaf) (voiMcr *lf9 to ^^tltirW .t' 

Alls XXtfo »cf &t ,«i«X'.-: ■■^■T.-,' 

liTXtf Jbinma mtod ;toa Aad ftn^ i' . « ^ea a«tf oiIb oti. , iov 

•iiiioloft* «^9X 45*X v>I* Ai. . . itifcrmrt #«JHri>»rtfl«f "WfT ,9twmut9 

At ,«j(aijeu imiv€kl b^hvXoal oaXa . ■ lotf « to Bttl4it •<«;» J«ocF<r bmvcllM 

rxotod ftov. 4Mi9 ttwiroO o/fir ot XaoQt^pa 

do^tXA.oiCaXif »XXod««X ^aitt ft*#Xo»i teoif vCt ,mmm^ mOt to ovif iirt ^^^ - 



Kltlc*, Hath B. Kiske and KAjm& UUke ax^ houn& uato th» plaintiff in 
the penal mm of #100, siad laiat tfe# ©oafiitisn of the ©tellgatian is suoh 
that whereas, the plaintiff reeov©re€ a jt^gaent agaiaet Alfred Mleke, 
Rttth B. Mieke bM Mlnnn Mlelte for ^e reetitution of the dtsorihed pren. 
i«e«, m& O0«te of eult, from whieh Judpseat Alfred Mleke, i^th B.Miske 
«a« Minna Migke hare taJten m appeal? that «a©t? if the said Alfred 
Kifiltt, aath a. Mltke ana Minim Miske shall pi^eeeute their appeal vltk 
effect, and aleo CpAyl all danagee and loee whieh the eaid plaintiff m^ 
■uetftlB • • * in eaee the Jod^tnt from irtiieh the appeal ie taken le 
affirmed or appeal it dieaiaaed. then the ateve ohlipitlon to be Toldi 
•thervriee to rmln in full foree and effect. - The hond ie signed only 
^ Uabelle Kieke, the eurety, and by Buth B. Mi«ke, one of the defend- 
ant., on May 21, isss, pi«i«tiff filed her a|>eaial ^d li,.ited appear- 
anoe in the County Court for the purpose of -eonteetlng the jurlefiietlon 
»f the court.- At the ea«e tine «he filed a witten aotion ^hieh prayed 
that the b^p^bX be diemieeed. On the iame day the defendant, pre.ented 
an oral eounter motion, asking that a rule be ^tered on the juetiee of 
the peaet to file an »«ended trsneeript, which motion vaa aUoved. the 
iBotlon of plaintiff to dle«ie. the appeal va^ oontinued. and on June 12, 
19S9, the County Court eaatalned plaintiffs isotion «nd dleaiased the 
•ppesl of Alfred Mieke, Ruth B. Mlrtce and Minna Hieke. On ^une 27, 1039, 
th. defendant, and Umi.e Kieke fUed a written amotion, praying, that the 
court vaeate the order &L^nlmlng the appeal, fhe motion wa. pree^ted 
by attorney. ;^ch«ehner and 3legan. The motion wm aecompanled by a 
petition, verified toy one of defend^Jit.' attorney.. On July 1, l0S8,the 
court denied the laotion and petition to ira<^tt the di»«i.eal order. On 
July 20, 1939, attorney, aohaohjier and Slegan vithdrm^ their appearanee 
a. atto«»eye for the defend^t. and Louise Hieke. and attorney Lawrenee 
Lenit entered hi. appeartoioe in their stead. At the same tlaa, t^.y 
.igned ana fUed a eon.ent to the «,b.ti^tion of attorney., whii^i read.j 

*we hereby oon.ent to the vlthdravel of soha«aaier and Siegaa, our former 



s 

i-.n.} i^v fvjiaj.i:tRi^ 9Sif indi i^nS- ^O'Ji^ >0 MM Xam<i luti 
,9A^^rt »uw^ ri-ai«e||ft ;l«imAvt « ft*«i»v«*«^ ltJttiii«Xq ftdJ «M»i»<lir tM^ 

•JtalN.a turn «»3t«lM te'slXA f«M95«t ^vii^ «<n(t ,tltfi 1« iiTma Am ,«tti 
M'i'UA UAH *fl9 It voa" iTAdr {X«0q^ iu MJto^r wttd mIUN muiIX &iu 
tf^Jtv X««<tQs 119(15 99M»»«<nq[ IljKfB •jfisiM McniN &«« wlalll .n dt^fl ,«jitiif 
ie«fi YlX^oiAiq Mas •!£} dtlifir •••X tea if iiifi XXa Ixmti} •aXa tea ,td«lla 
ti m^t al I««^<2a atfV ifaiito amt 9iitaa»«l ad? aaaa ni • • • oiatacni 
;Bl«v atf ol aal^aslXfTd a^acfa adt itadi ,teaal«alA al Xaaq«i no Aaopiitla 
\iae Aaftsia ai tearf ailY *.toal1a Ana a««cel IXj»1 oi iilaawx at aal^^*"^^^ 
.bfltlafi a<£r t« aoar ,ajfaii( •& ittii»v xtf ftoa nfw^m vit ,ajlalM aXXs: 
..raaq^a ^flAiX tea Xaiaaqa ':iad 6aXll WUhIaIj^ ««S«X ,X5 yam hO 
Aoiyaldalii/t »f& ^aX^aataoa** )« aaoqwq %iO iflft t<oro9 ftniroO ail^ : 
texflcni ^it^ fHtll«& a»9tl%» « teXXl ada afliX^ aiiaa aitit tA *,ttuQ9 9t& to 
imttuttw^q afoatettaft tit \bA aauia a£Lf no .teaatealJ^ ««l Xaaqqa ailt t« 7 
to a^X^atfi at& «« te^nsTisia a<( aXm a tAc!} ^iilJlaa «AOiaro« vatAuae Xisnre f'> 
aif? .£»av«XXA^ a«w fl«JUa« ilaAilw «t%x<ica«izait Aateaaa iia aXXt ot aa - 
,!U %aM% Ao bAs tJkamiteaa «av Xa^aq<|a af(9 aalAtaX& ot ttirAiaXq lo aoi" 

aitt ftaaaiisai6 tea Ao£«att a'ltl^^ulaXq Aaolafava 9iu;o0 ^^AtroO ^it ,6$0X 
,88QX «7S mt$% e& .aiCalli aaxilH te« 9Mtm ,a Atun «a:(8XM 69«rtXA to Xaa 
9^ t»M ^lYft*xq ^aaltass ^^iiit^ M b»ll\ aiaXK aalvoJ Aoa atoaftrxataA v 
i>«faaaa'x«( a0«r m»ltwi ^^ ,l&9(t-ia »ai ^alBmlmnlh nateo mdt ataa«nr i*isj ■'> 
a tff fraiAAqsoooiB aav AeXtfita MiXX .aab*^^ tea •canifaadaB tx^tnciiti ijtf 
aj£r,Osex ,X xXxKti aO .a^mcKf;r« 'atAateatab 1q aAo ^d teiti^ar ,& 
no .iaJ>io X«aaX(aei& 9*tM atAOA? a^ fl«>llJtti»<i teii aQl#«a •!& telAat tfvoa 
aofljR^aaqqA "ilmM wntetjbsr A«ii»»id tea ':^ArlaaiIor ^xtiivf^a ,^$. . 
aoAarrvaJi !^fa««o;tia teue «a2(aXU aaijuoj Mlc atoaiuialtafi 9tti lot at«fl^<^ 
tatft ,aisit ama nAt tA .l^aata «|aii;r (it ae^a^t^aqqa ax^i tet«tA>> 
iatea*x MltSx t^ix^Attaf ^c Aol^Jutl^atfira 8i$^ c»# #AaaAOO a AaXlt ftAs 

«ta«not uro •Aaaaifi tea taAdoftifatt te lava^^Jr aif? or taaaAoa iitfanail aw** 



8 

Attorneys, aad ©aasent to tfec filiag of thu &ppmr»&(m of Lawr«a«« hmXt, 
at out future Attoni«y in lahe s.lK>ve entitled cause." 

The firet point w# will c©neid«r ia th« ^snteation that plain- 
tiff should lMiv« aerr^ defsadante with aotiee of the motion to disaias 
^« appvsl. The reoord establishes that attorneys S«ha©ha«r »ad Slsgaa 
«S>peared for the def tadaats aad argued agalast the seotioa to dlsslss. I^ey 
also presented sand ai^gued the action to meate the order dismiegiag the 
appeal. Api^arently, aefeaaaots* poaitiea is that the aotiee should have 
been served on them personally. The eabstitutioa of attorn^^s and the 
ooaseat thereto i^^ws ol early that sc^xaahaer and aiegan had authority to 
represent the defead&ats. As defendants were represented by attorneys of 
their own ehooslng, they eannot aov suaoMsfttlly eoi^lala that; they were 
not served with personal aotioe. Another point urged is that the Juetiee 
of the peaee had no power to i^tiange the jud^eat order by de^arini^ the 
liidpwat against Louise Miske to be void bee^iuse she was not a party, nor 
served with euwsons. fhe V9&r6 does not show iSnstt this point was raised 
before the Justice of the peaee or in the County Court, and it cannot be 
raised for the first tine in this court. Louise Kieke was not a party, 
nor was she served with eiifflmons before the justiee of the peaoe. The ap- 
peal bond filed with the Juetiee reoognises tiiat she was not a party de- 
fendant* We do aot undi^stand how she can appeal vthen she is not a party 
and when t^iere ia no Judg»ent against whieh she astn eoeiplain. 

The point on wlbloh defendants plaoe ehief reliance is that see*- 
tion 180, ohapter W, 111. liev. $tat. 1939, provides that "no esppeal fr©» 
a justioe of the peaee shall be disraiseed for any infoErmality in the ap- 
peal bond, but it shall be the duty of the oourt before whoa the i^peal 
may be pending, to allow the party to aaend the same within a reasonable 
time, so that a trial aay b« had on the narits of ^e ease." An appeal 
from a Justioe of the peaoe must be prayed, and it is essential that the 
parties appealing file an a«!.e<iuate appeal bond. The defendants contend 
that under Seetion ISO it vm the duty of th« oourt to enter a rule on 
the defendants to amend tha. bond within a reasonable time. They argue 



; &»Itlfaa •tckU titt Ai tV'i^ol^A rxfftifl iw 

>C«if^ ,ttBls>^i'^ o* xioitMi •If? #niil«9A B«iqrM Aai •tclA^o•t•A •iff ted JbaiMci^ 

•if^ ftiM «t«a'Y077ji to Hoifsti^sdMi actf .tXIamaiaq ■•<& ae A«Tv«t a9«4i 

•«»« t*fCf {T^Hlr alsliwoo x£XiftaM»*tf» woo ^ocumo t»i& aHfllsoitf* ewo «tM# 
—tfift 9ii$ i.^dt 62 fwitir Yflloq larf^onA ••oi;^ofl iMOOftrmi rffZw fttvn^i t^B 

tMI «ttt»q « tM tmr •1(8 »«if.'^0»tf ftior mT ot mMM ••ii/oJ ttillA9fl immtl 

ttml*"^ 9«(v ;raiM[ «if!^ »«i& voOm !^e« 1)906 ft«i«6«<x *f(T *taqmmm iftlw tertMi 

•tf ««Bll«» ftba *■ x^M»oO m!^ ai t^ —a»q 90$ le ••l^ant mdJt •n«t«f 

«f9huu[ « ir«fi aj^r ;^&ZM »aljy«J .^t/co niril at wUS tatit aifif tot b^n^m 

'-^Ifi atf? .toAcq aiO "^ ati 9ttr »tota<f ■««tt«ra <ttriv ft«in*« aito mw umI 

t^«qr a 9«Mi a«w '^x § 7»itt ••ttonotct aaitaiil aif^ it^lv ft«Xlt Jtoarf Xm^ 

^i£il » SuR li aila if»f&r £a«<T4B <!«• ^^ veif AiM#a^»biui ^oti c* .:tnfifif»t 

>'9 nso ada dvitfy faain^a ^nMQitet on al a^^^ ;.: asjftr iWit 

-&/'. , ^o'l^xxdrf teltfe »«^au£4 atAsftoatali jlolxfw no tmtti aifT 

. : <t i'?tj^^8 Oft* fMiS aaAlTotq ,fsai .^aTS ,T9fi •III ,CT ta^qaifo ,06X nott 

- i« B/iw Rf " ' "■ •■rftttl jfiA tot teeaisaifi arf XXada a««aq »x» to sol^aot a 

X«*utiie fefl? .^>> jiota<i 9tured arflf to t*»^- ^"^^ ""^ XX«da tl »iirf ,bflod X««q 

i>Xtf«itoea*t A ai/ltlv amaa adf hntma 9tt %i-^~., ..... imU^ ol ,yiXfin»<{ acf t*>i 

jUa^[^ HA **9asd 9^ to atltan aitt ao ftari: aitf x«b XiiXt^ a ^ad^ oa «a/iii# 

»AS 33ki&l- iMltn^i;^'^ il n ftOfi ,A«^/ttq a«f #a«B a««*q 9d;f to aoJiilatft j» «rrt 

bamtaoa «? <i>Aatf Xi»«q<^a »^jib0«&« as aXit aaiX«aq<is •aXfVM; 

jRO aXxn M H^im <si pistiM »^t so t^iA ttilt ^Mtw ^1 OSX aoUMd taMW taJII 

aiqit« t9^ ,*ali ^id&aosiun m aliitln ba9d<kaf AMaa •# a^oaAiiataA aiGr 



4 

that tht boss which 'm.B filed vas in substantisX oompliaAGe >rlth the 
ctatute, aUd that the eourt h&d jurisdietloA of th® appt&l hy virtue of 
the fact that the boad wag signed by the surety sM Xsy ituth B, Miele, 
one of the def@na&i&ts. Appeals in forelMe antry end detainer are g9i^> 
erned by statute. 'She appeal muet be perfected "in the ease aanner and 
tried in the eaist way ae appeals are tak^ and tried in other eaeee." 
(0eetiona 19 a^nd SO, eh«pt«r 57, XXX* Rev* st&t« 1939.) fh« bond vm«t 
provide that the def«aidKnt "will proeeeute euoh appeal vith effect, and 
pay all rent then dne or that aay beeoate due before the final detex^ina* 
tlon of the suit, and «leo all danac*s amd loss i^ieb the plaintiff oay 
eustain by reaaon of the withlwldlng of t&e prMsieea In eontroverey, and 
by reason of any Injury aone thereto during eu^ vithholding, until the 
restitution of the poeeession thereto to plaintiff. " The appeal was 
prayed by all of the defeadante and the bond reeitee that all of the de- 
fenasnte are bound thereby. As stated, only one of the defendants signed 
the bond* Alfred Miske and Minna Kiske did not eign the bond, and, 
^erefore, did not eff eet or prosecute an appeal as provided by Section 
20 of Chapter 67, (roreible tntry snd Detainer Act) 111. Hssv. utat. 1939. 
The defendant deolaree that tiie appeal vae not a joint sup peal* We have 
•arefuXly exassined the reported eaeee and are convinced that it is not 
oeeee^firy thst ^e parties appeeling shall speeifioalXy state that the 
appeal is a joint appeal. If they all pray the appeal, it i« a joint 
appeal. The reported easee also oonvinee ue that ^e defect in the bond 
in not a mere infoxwality. one of the essentiaXe in an appeal fros a 
JUE^tioe of the peace is that there be an appeel bond, tftwerous easee 
hold thet ii^ere a Joint appeal is prayed and allowed, all appellants maut 
sign the appeal bond, or the appeal on notion will be disnissed* Ooo > 
igre^'ational Church of Harvard v. Page . 265 IXX. 267; HiXeiaan v, Beale . 
115 111, SS5j Tedriek v. ¥eXl8* 168 1X1. 214 j Town v. Howleeon, 176 111. 
^J j^pytune V. Gilbert . 207 111* 25dj ^tiefel v. AmelEaaated 3htet Metal 
workers Looal tlnlan : 19© Iii, App, 94 j National Ban:-: of Ooraiaeree v* 
Church. 195 111. A pp, £10* 



•dS A3lM »oA£.Xi^^OO l»i3u&7&iiud al 2,^\J Li^Xll tan xU)JL4ir ur 

".«»!«« ^t^^o Al fkftl'U &0« mMI 9%B tXatq<{ji a« x*v t«M till nt l^itf 

VUt ^ti^nlAlq sifCi ctoidw »«oi Aa« WiyufAft XX« mX« ti»» a^fZirt •<<# t;f aslif 
!^iut «t»'<«voa;yiio<» al setlMrtq %d$ %• iiii&X«iftftftv ftit^ to iiOfto««i \i nlmt%m 

•sv X«»qq« »dt ".lll^ttialc 0^ «$9's«tp aol«B9ftMf %iti \» a9ltutlt%%n 
HiA »£i» l4» XXa tAdt «»tloi»« Aa«tf 9iit taft ataaba»t#li AiU 1« IXA vcT £»t«il9 

tJ^OA «^«tf ttfil* fi;gis d^oa btb •JteiM Aonilf i^iit •MbXJ( i>»nl£A .Anotf «4> 
Aoif»«^ X¥ btmrtffe^ t* XMqqn «• •#»»••««« %9 ##•!)• toa H& «ft<tolft%«i(» 

,9S8x .^«ir^ .Tn>i .ixi (t«A itois^Ba tMB rtim fXdi#«oi) «Vd 79i^«i<9 u <^ 

ton aX :fX ^iui^r hit9atrn<m 9*uk ftiui MftiM J»«^o<|8'X •M h9niMmt» \1£jA91M 

9At s»^ 9tBi^ ^Xi«»XtX9*q« Il9tt9 aiU;X»«t«A atitf^saq 9Jli iiidi vu^Mo^tn 

ttilol e, ful U »X<*^<s« 909 i«tq XX« %9di 11 .lai»qQA laio^ m aJt Xftaqgs 

AfioKf ft^ al toiAl9b 9<i» 9«4^ »a ^oaXvnoo mXs MKJKk Attt'C^qsi mTT .XMqq« 

J} aott X««<iqA cus &l 9l&ltmm99 9tii 1« aaO .^^XXAireolal VMn s 9oa aX 

»e«j» stfcxtoim ,£»3iecr Xaftct^A 09 9^ 9%*A3 fi^di »X MiAsq #4^ ^o »9X?«xit 

tfUMS 9#««Xi^qq9 XXa «&9V6XXa ^A ft«x«nc« 9i X99q^ ^aXol 9 9Wif«r f«i& ftXod 

* >iy O .^asiisslJi^ »<} XXiw Bottom no X99qq« 9<i» to ,&aocr Xaaq^ 92i;f o^Xe 

«ila!A «v fiHKiUyi }^^ -^X ^Mts «S3£1 •'' ^WnM^ 19 ^-itfftP JffHtf f^CBl 

is£waltti& •▼ #|ftX|f. j««s .XXX 'P08 ,mfMP •^ aaasaal ?«3 

.T ^f ?;»iiyff!5 ii9 m^ ,Mff^ii,4« tMi «Q%A .XXX MX imi^MfUmmm 

•0X5 •<*« A ,rXX 381 



yiaiatiff slio oalls &tt«»ti®ii to the fslXiuMi of the to©M to 
pi<ovide for the p&jaent of rent due or to become due. Seeewse of our 
views on otb«r points. It Xb unaeotss&ry to d^elrte wh«ther tlm failure to 
provide for the p&yaent of rent Stie or to beossrae ^« if&a stieh a defect a* 
could be siaei^eS. 

Bef«n^-ants farther walntain tfeat v&ere any «S.®f endaat is B®t si«4« 
a party to ma appeal WnS, the eoart $mjf if it deesse aeee^s&ry, issue 
sumrsone requiring the a^imareiioe af @uc^ a>efendaat» and therein obtain 
Jurisdiction of hisi. They rely on Serfclon 181 of Ohmpter 79, Hi. Hev. 
Stat. 10S&, ^fhieh reads: "i^hc-n br appeal i^toll be taken 'by one of severtCL 
partiee from the Jiiagaent of a juetiee of the pea«e« the clerk of the 
oourt shall Icfiiat a siunmmmi c^inet the other parties, notifying thea of 
the &ppeel in the taid eourt» and requiring them to appear snd &bide hy 
bM perform the Juagaent of the oourt in the prealeee. ''*♦'" "^hle setion 
Is not iq»|}lioahle to the faete in the oistae at bar. It h&P. referenoe to a 
eituatioa i>^@r% lasts than all of ta^e defendstnts pray an appeal. In the 
instant oaee all of the defendsnte praye4 an i^peal. fhey aleo appeared 
in the County Oourt «nd urged that eourt to permit then t© tmtmi^ the 
appeiCl honS« 

For the reasone etated» we ©re of the opinion that the Gouaty 
Court of Oook County wa« rlisht in dlsaieftiag the appeal. Keaoe, the 
orasre of the County Court of June 12, 1939, and July 1, 193S» are af- 
flrsaed. 

HSBISL, J« and 

DE8I3 g. suLiLiv'^, ^.J,, amosa. 



a 

^•^ *^ ^' "■ '^"'' ■«'^ •»'»■. ^ttfft ynei \o fwtotXBq »/» tol sbJhrwq 

«l£^JKS%»0«fi 9Mii%b il *tt ,VMR ttac^ mdf (ftftOCf X«»qqB nil 0$ xtv»q M 

iilji^ito /fftieriif hn^ left's ort«t»» ^tf« lo eocuiateqqa 9iii ^tnlisp^t itiwrnan 

.-r»^ .^f iC9;r(i»t{0 to ISX iiol:r9*& ao x^*"^ t^*^ *<>^^ )o aoisfoXSvl'Xtfi, 

Ui-x^ritti \o fiiAc >c<^ mKs^ 9cf XXJuft IjMqqi? oi a«r!V* i9i>t^9i tUittfH ,W|t&i .^A^fd 

t« BStit ijfllx\ZttM tfk^ttnzq. t^dto trftr i^eajts^ tmimmin » tiratl ilAd:» fitroo 

%^^ 90si9i»'%i»i 9Rd tl ,t»a tA »».»« 9At ftl B^o«t ftif:^ oiT s/tf^Miiiq^ fcm «1 

:u »X4W»qQ« fta ^»'»; si'affi&a«1t9& 9(tf to XXjs aaH9' sti«X ^tdff;^ AOlfA&if'li 

a^iMitiqa o»Xa x^tfT .X«»qe{« lui IH»x^*tc{ «#asMatftft mdt to XXit ftftAO tM«f«ai 

• Itaotir X«*q<|« 

»d? ,»o«'^H ,Xa»<iqje »<fJ :^iasla»l^ jtl Jj^li taw t^atioO X«eO t» tItwoO 
-til 9na ,SB8X ,i ifXi/U &«« ,«8«X t8it Mtaift to ttucQ t*flooO •f» t« bisMo 






41047 

ft eorpQT'MoTi, n» Trustee!, | 

/I ■ 

THOMAS 0. lU^UkLL, EQIllr^, f.mAU., 

Befeninnts. 



I^OUXS ailSMJ^H* 



A.pc<«|i«nt, 



corporation, sa Truate®, et -?!,, 

AP3»«11««S. 




OIROUIf 9©Bflf 



OOOK 001' HtT. 



305I.A, 497 



ME, JIISflOK StIRKE aEMVIE«i9 THl? 0. iSlOB OF TH£ C^UHT. 

on M^y 3, 1937, T^es^m^s 0. ft'tiKlfliil *»iid. ?;ditto A, BaadnlX, his 
lift, #x»cute.1 ^nd leliver«d their 348 00Mp©» bonds, nwa^red from 
1 to 346 in«iu«ive, for the a.ggregftt« principal aua of 1^0,000. no, 
fhe iw&nd* w«r« in denomiii^^tlona of t500,00 %ad 11,000,00, t»ondB 
wssmteett^ 1 to & matured Mi^y ?, 1329, hOd the bitlanoe aiiittured suoeeasitre- 
ly th<^r«Rfter on It^f 3rd and S©veab«r Srd until «^y 3, 1937, risey bor« 
interest ^t the rnte of S-l/s^ per aimua^ payable sftai-^nnusilly en 
tbe 3rd d^^y of iioTtaber and «ny of eaoh year, e'vid«ne«d by lnt«r««t 
ooupona ntt^ohed tbereto* To secure payment of the bonds, the 
RaJBdalls, on the »njm dsy, executed nad delivered their trust deed 
to the Ohioago Title and Trust Coatpany, aa trustee, severing the real 
estftte and Iteprovesents Icnovn «a the ^ayite Mnnor Apartisenta, loosted 
at <J92fi-30 lsyi» Avenue, Ohio^go. Thie lot?n wss for the D\jrpo«« of 
eonstruoting the building. In selling the bonds to the ;»iblic, it 
wes represented that the txiilding would oontain 60 apiMrtiseBts "ooKpletely 
furnished," At the tiae the bonds were sold the building was 
appr?<i8«d at taa6,(X>0.00, «ind the land nt 130,000,00, « total security 
of f335,000,0O, the trust deed provided th«t the borrower amet deposit 
eaoh month 1/6 of the ae«i-»snual prlneipstl nai int«r«at throughout 
the tfsra of the loan, The original underirriter of the teorjd issue 







iV 



iAJSOHT 



,v» ;r>f, aiyoJ 



.V 



8irf ,xi^focfti .A rf^iit? iifis iX*ff iiMwrfT »vs<iii »?; \«M ao 

serT) tAxmiauM tmimoff aoquoo &^. xlmdt t»x«TiX<ri> tea Jb*iut>ttxo ,«lXv 

•OC.0OO«0CS# to ma9 X«qloifi«{ •>.«q|«tjMI« •/!> %o\ ^mrt^uloai aM-^ o# i 

aJutc^ ,0C* ^o euzoi^ABiXaoiKil^ al •«** •l^aod ftiit 

Motf T«Mlf vTS^i «e x»M, iltms ktt •ftlmtpn fen* InC t^M ao t»ilf»tT<»f(« Xi 

a« t-£XjKiaiii>i-i««« Biil«x<M7 «auinK« ttq j^Vx-4» to a^^^t »Kf :r ntx 

tptift^aX xd b*on«Uv^ , lo«« t« fftN te« ««tf«*Toil lo x»i^ bxi •dt 

'^at «sbao<f •itf Iti £6«Mftf«q MJi09<i oT •Q#otMf X>«ie«^^ii am^^/wf^ 

£)9«£> ^8inr^ ri^dt b9t9rll»t tm» i>«tt/o»x» «X"'^ MBn» etf» a« ««XXi!l)a<^r 

XiBftT •dt 9niT«vo9 ,<»9^»iftt ej «liu^fn^ intnt boir •Ittf a^MlffO vi!;! o# 

1« ««ocrt«Q »if# lol «5w fl«*X tidt .o.^fioitfO ,titio*TA *ev 

I «l>XXdaC; »d» 0# Sftaotf «d^ SniXX«« fli .SAl^XXlltf VLt i^niJ'Tirutraoo 

' t a-iriacifli 00 Aluffloo bJLuom T^ibltiaci 9d} $»dt l>o^ao««T^OT mmm 
#0«d^|tfOlt4;r fffttl bus iMqJt^ttiiq X«tfiui«*lA*«> «<{' to d\X <(t#ii«Ri Hba* 



a 

WHS L«l^t & Oespai^. the priaolpal «.ftd imtsi^si naya^nts w®re t© 
be Mftde st *li« offlee of tbe i»tter ©oispaay. t^rlsus defaults wer* 
ffl»d« In %h9 j>fty»8at of ^loslpal^ iBtey««t aad tajrea. A beasilieidera* 
eos^lttce was drga&i?«df «rhioh oaxled upen th« bondholsi^iTs to 4epo3it 
their bonds, Oa May 15» 1334, the truste* filed its eoaplmiat t© for«« 
oloae the trust <dLe«d in the Cireult So^rt of Ooolc CeuBty. the o««ise 
wfis referred t© * Master in Chancery, i^o r^ parted Me fiTwilBg® &Bd 
rscomaandations. On February '^1, 1936, ^ decree ©f foreelftmire «».B<i 
atjle v«« eat^red, Att*»ohed thereto w«f « oopy of the original deposit 
TigreejBent dnted February I, 19j0, *is aswaded April 4, 1930. This 
deposit agreeaeat purtH>rted to be '•for the preteetion of the bead- 
holders or first mortgage bonds sold through leight & Ooarm^*, 
The presLBbie of the deposit agreemeat recited th t it wse Vm iatentioa 
to tftke aetioB to proteot the ▼:riovi8 defaulted is<3ues uader^rlttea 
by height A OoapAny. Section 1 of ArtleXe I, thereof aaa»d the 
Ohloago Title ©ad trust Ooapaay as deposit "ry, 'sad «^?eetloa S of the 
a«AO artiele proTldea thnt upoa the deterimin^tion of the oosmittee, 
bonds of angr giv«n issue were to be o<s>lled for de]308it. k holder of 
«ay such Isoade oould deposit the sniae with the lepoeitnTy ^n'i reoeiire 
a ooTtifloato of deposit. Also attaohed to the etsteaeat of iatentioa 
to bid, wws * plttB of reor^nigfttion. Qa Unj 10, 133f , the Master 
filed hie report showiag that he sold the preailaes to Hlf^abeth 
Headerson, rs nosiaee of the ooMfflittee, for the sua of t40,0f^0,00. 
The OhRaoeiior direeted the ootumittee to give notice by publlo«tioB of 
the deto set for the heariag of the notion to »fflr« the sale aad 
the plan. Oa June 7, 1938, l^ouis Susmsn filed objections. On July IS, 
1938, the ©ourt referred the petition for affirmation of the tale imd 
for the apprev*! of the plsa, «ad the objsotioas thereto, to a s^el%l 
ooaaiaiasioaer. auaaaa also filed objections to the socouat of Harriot 
Sennlag, who had opornted the property. He wis© filed a petition In 
the nnture of » ovsss ooaplniat. The court also ref??rred the objeetioas 
to the weoouat of Hnrriet Henaing to the apeoiBl ooajaiasloaer aad ftlso 



s 

•T99 t!fXt;«il:«^ %ttptveiV ,'%B»<m<i9 n^ftmX 94i to •9l\)o ftdt }« •taa MT 
x»oqt& o# •fsfel^litfiotf ad^ a^fiff toXlso dotAv «>»«ia«jtt« «s« »«t^ia«oo 
't«0so t<f7 .>i:;rflc;oS iooO lo #T(|»>0 ituml^ HAt til 6o«ib #ain^ •At •••ie 

tejB OSflihilil 8ix( ^9^tOq»Y Off* «X**«M^ Hi 1l»t«/(ll B 0# AVTTV^AI •«« 

X>a» fYu«oXo»tot to ooToai^ « ^dS8i «X^ ^«tn(5«t aO .«noi(r«lMiMUDooo« 

tliiM^ Imt^ific ant %• xfoo " 9»^ Ptfir^at ti9tir*MtHk ,bot^i£m %/tw oXiio 

9iiCt .C^X ,^ XXt<)A fbttmn ■ X^Ptnd9f i>otf«J6 #aMi»o«B« 

•boot *iit to noitottlOTo o(<^ Tot* 96 •# 5otYO«rti#c[ tflmi»ot9« fiatNiM 

• "i;i!(«<;a«0 & #ttSil<ia «fiE|i>OfxKjr bXo« duoiotf i^fiStlOMi tfotit to otobX^il 

a^itaf^tnl «i&t o-^n #i t tSt t«iMooit ^nMi«io«^ ^iMigafr |M(^ %• «X«iM9Tq MfT 

«»##i^»TOfcA^ e^f«9«i tft^Xtfiitob ac/oivt^T ndt ttn^tetq of aoi#»» «]fj«# •# 

•^# Mwrn to«i:»{f^ «X «XoitxA larX noifoofi ♦ yf ^ » M|I»Z x^ 

t(ft ^o S a^i»o»^ hfl» ^t^-'iri^OiRSk ft* if»ttlMi» #«««¥ Wui •XtlT »^ir,9lffC) 

«ootiJ|Ha«fi •tf^ to aoAt^Mimri^fb not HOtiu Hdt- MMvoTq •i»irt» Prnm 

lo toMoxf A .^iooqa^ tot ftoXX»o od mt otoir omoI fftMri:^) Vi» to tfuiatf 

STjtftOo? ti«e T<^lieo<i»l^ ^i Atlm muf •dt tl—q%b fcXiioe «too4 tfoim foa 

jiolt«»^iU to tttmL»t»f od* o# t>Mt»A^#« ool^ ,»i«#«to* to •i40itl#«90 • 

TO#««i& •sit «|«<a «0i tiOfS MQ .floi^««X«j«StoaY to aitifii o m»9 ^bia ot 

4ift<f«8lX'i o# oooiKOt^ 9At bl— od tod^ jiniimlte #«ac^«f olif i»«Xit 

. O,or>o«0i)# to auo od^ aot ,o«#^i*ftoo od# to OMtlftoa «« «fl#ot«&aaA 

itoi^flOiXrf^ U<f ooX^oa otXi «# «o#*i«»oo wit b9H«tlh «oj:x»ort«i® «« 

^a^ olse »d* wcltt* ©* «<»l*^j*i »dt t« snituwl oit* 10* *«« o*«fe odt 

jUA \i«t aO *»f?ai*o«ji«fo boXlt «nw«jMfl aliro*! *8l$iX «T octft kO .itoXq Mit 

-ffff oX«« »ri# to iidiJejBtittii tot 0oiJrX;ro9 odt b«n»t»a tmf4» rnAt tW*JI 

jriO'wrB A ojr ,oj»»t«a^ wioi#o«t^© »^ lioe «fl«X<' »rf* to X«ro:£f.3T|i^ odif «ot 

^^Xt^^-H to #«*foo6jf» oiJ* ©» «i!ol#oot<^o feoiXt ooXn AMBtfit •toeoJk«8lan«e 

tfX «oX^i*«K| i» fe*XXt mln OK «x#^o(io«q oilt ibo#jV3«qo 2>jiiI Mb «9AtMBai 

t«0l^O«t''"- •^''^* fc»'ST»"J*>"5t ©al« ttl/OO «if «#ja«X4fiH»0 OTMO » t© OtWtiiMI odt 

ml» jt^^lwnoo Xjiiofi^a «Mf« o# ||iiiiur«II *«lYtiili to «aiia»»o «lt mt 



to 
4Sir«otcd th« sp«0l%l o^malaslctner^report sa to i^«ther Sw«a»»B b# 

grssated !©«▼# to file the "petition in th« nature of ^ cross-coiB^Uiiat*' • 
Su«a»a wfiB set an original pur0h«»er of th« bonde but pureb-^sed the 
«3i»e mtttiT the ©ntry of the de«T€® of f©r«olo«uT« at prl«e« ntnginf 
fr©a 19 t© 3?^ o€nt8 on tfee Aoiimr, fhe ip«eiai ®©i»l»:?ten«r reported 
to th« court. On the bssis of th«f rtpo:rt the Ohanoellor entered an 
or<,ler on June 30, 1339, (1) eenfiralB^ the s-^le, (2) directing eextaia 
ohangea in the plan of r«org%nls@.tion and ftpproTlng tlie plan as «« 
aaende4« (5) approving the report snd aeoount, Rn<! (4) ienying leave 
of Suamftn to file the petition in the n«sture of n erous ooffiplaint. 
Susffl»n filed applio- tion foir %n allowj^noe of fpee to his ^ttoTi»ys» 
?ihioh «i|)t>l lost ion, together with the ^pplio^^tion for fftee filed hy 
other Qounael, ^bm referred to the apeol'?! oo«i«i«sloner. The ap«oi'*l 
eo^uaie^s loner in a eupple^nti^l report reooa^ended the <»lloff<=>noe of 
fees to Su»aiMm*a oounjel. -^hen the report oaiae an for hearing before 
the Ohfsnoeiios, he disallowed any fee« to 3u«»»in's «kttoTney«, Sueasaa 
proseexites this Rppesl fro« the deoree oonfiraiing the sale and approving 
the pl«n of reoxganlBation, froa the refus^^l to tllow hi« petition for 
sfflrnatlve relief, froa the order approving the ac^oynt, a.nd from the 
order allowing fees to various i^rtles ^nd r^'fuslng to )»llow fees t© 
hi 9 oouneel* 

The first etltlelsm presented la that the decree, whioh 
pisoed certain def'^ulted hoada on s parity, wise prooured by fraud, 
and th?t; it #s« the duty of the oourt to ita^dlfy auoh deoree. The "oonds 
nnd ©oupona ffi^tuTlng up to and including May 3, 1939, auabere 1 to 5, 
in ftHa s,ggrega.te prinelpal eua of 1^3,000,00, w«r« pild and ORkseeled, 
the mortgagor 8 frilled to deposit funds for the pftynent of ooupons 
Serlea 4 and bonds rasaflibered 6 to 10, in the aggregate principal sua of 
i3,0''^0,o0, pay«hle S©veaber 3, liJsa. Ulght & Ooapany took up the 
matured bonds and eouj^aa of thie d-*te froa the bondholders thereof, 
ftnd by notiee served on the trujste® dated January 37, 1330, iwrported 
to 'jssert the right of Lelght & Ooapany under the trust deed, to hold 



e 

t>*^i(K[»? T«aoi7«i»»o«> X«io*9« 94T *SJKXX«i^ •d^ oo •f«*9 E& #1 61 «««t 

aJU^v^o ^ai^o^rtiJh (a) «»!/;» a<!^ lfllB7itA«o (X) ,6&6X «0e Mlul aa t^Jbso 
•« e« «aX(i ajf^ ^cUroaqq* ^a» aoi#«3Xii«jitoi»% t« sjiXq Mijr aX ••i^OAtf* 

•^nisXqiftoo titer >d» «X «9l#X;r»q •<!# ftXlt pt ajmut^ lo 

««X^'^a^^^ f>i<^ 4M »»*l U afi&i«r«XX# a« n^t AoX^^olXqq* i)«XX> amimiC 

t<^ t*XXl »•#! tel .ii«X|£OXX«q« t>4# 4#i* t*|U«M9$ til«iiii»iXQ4« iltiXifKr 

t» Miii«iroXXii mtt htOmmmt^T t%9^vi J,»ta9»9JL9(i,u» r eX «aaoX» «iaM«t 

VM'imif ;|aXt«^ vol A* mmi^ 4«09»t ittf* a*<i^ •X*ttiua»« a^AJMiaiitf ot ft«»t 

.' 'aiuwuS »tf Mat vu &«i»«XXiuU^ 9(4 ,i*Xl*eai)i(& ajft 

^t^.^i^ ^iij^ ^XmXta^o #n««b fttf^ Jk»xt X^aqqa slill tiiUijon8.Qrq 
iQi 0oxji^^Hq viif woXX« ot Xi^.e«it0i Mi 7 welt «AoXtJMXiU!^Koa« ta AaXq «4;^ 
fu(# aoit t'tvs. ^tmionoM ^tU sAXviT^tiiA ttfe«o •Hf aptt «t»JUi«i: »vi#4Mii;itt« 

4$X4^ 49Wto«fc driJ . .., _, ....,,.•. oaioiUlo ;^PiUt arfT 

sibAfcT 941 t99X99b tlOi;i: f. Ittm e) ttitQC ^/t? to xf^tdft PfU »fi9 ImM 

tS o^ X »x9<imua t'^ i X"-' snltuXc; vi# «fir ynXxtfiTJim »a©qiJoo jta* 

•i>»XeQAi>o btus J>i«^ rif^' , . «&i to AJM X^ietfiiYg »tfiil»tai« «ft 41 

to msn Xi^^oflltq ti* ,9 £t»rrs4iu«i «£»Ao4 fc/iJ« * »«iT®» 

9!if ^t! i&Gt Ytt 54A»r«» *ia»%& , . 

,to»^t4# t»»Jbio4**ro4 9dt morX 9f''f' »irf* to Bflodiroo *Hi» aJbaocJ *•!«*«• 

l>»>TOq*t«| ,€«€X 4te X«i«ff»V -N»»Aft ••^MfSt •4# «• *«n»0 »t>if«« \4 tULt 
Madt 0# ,&«ftb #ar»T* »£[i TSAam ta*<!r«W*> * t4^i«A *• ttfUlf! •<# #TWI««A •* 



4 

fmtsh bowJia »a^ nmup^nM »© p»»dii,»s«« 1^ it @s m psa.Tity wltli %h« 
u»maturs^d ^ad« na«l toupoBS. It fail«d, a&w^vet^ %© give aueli aotie# 
to the bo^h0lder«, the Iruat 4««d providts th^ t ia the rreat ieight 
A Oeapaay adTansed any of ita fundsi oa principal or Xnt^te&t, thta ©a 
failure to notify tla® trust*© ssM the i9©nsllioM#j"s, thf bonds sr (»oupdiui 
9© «e(3«ired afeo\jl<3 be ttented ?^,s 9i3toir9r>*«^. ia S^*tafeer o* I3«««aib#r, 
19fS-3, o«rt-sin boadholdeyB a,ad repyeseiitsitiTes of J.P'lgJjt «- 0©fflpaay h«ld 
jEeetinga to dettrwine ^nt «cti©n iBb&ttlt be tn^cen ia Ti«w of tbe default 
in i^eting tli« Hov»akmr 3, 19S9, ptineip®! '^lad Int^^rest samturitits, 
lioaar £• tin8a»»n, « iShioago att©ra«y# attended the ^e#ti»gs« He hsd 
prarohfis^d a miiajber of bonds of th« w^yB# Unnor Apartments iseu« ia 
'oeiijslf Qt hl9 oiients, as m result of the ««(»tini!;8, Ttii«««tB ap-eed (a) 
to take ©ver tUe titi« to the property, and (b) to cur* th<^ txiating 
dftfaults under th« fir«t anortgn^ feoadi i8»ti«» nad thJ'resfter t© seep 
tiie boadfi in good stsoding. At th« ti«e ^'insaaa agTP«<l e© to da, there 
ir«» Bia« ft s«««b4 a»ytgRge on th« pr©p«Tty, ««o«ring an ijad«bt«drie®s 
of Tfeom-As asmdaiil ®.nd wife for 111,500.00, chattel m©rtg?ige i^tes h«ld 
t>y Ho®®T Bro«« for the o»lajiee ©f th« purchase of furnitur* i.t»tall«d 
in th« property, «n unpniid oblig tioa of iii, 580,00 for csrptta 
purohaiaed from ¥tieboldt»a, and aa uap^id ohsrge of I^O.OO for « stoker. 
It appe«.r8 th»t Honaaa Headall, a brother of ThoaiRa ?»«iBdfill, irh© had 
ao iaterest ia the title to the Inad sad building, hnd Joined Thoaims 
Handftll in the exeoution of the ohftttel sortgnge notes for the 
furniture. In oonneotion with the trmnsfer of title, Tiasa^a executed 
nn iastxiajaeat to indesmify Thoetfta Raadell and his «rife and Piorigaa 
Kandftli saa hie wife oa aooount of «!! of aaid oblig«!tiona, exoept 
the dooofid asortgnge, Tlnacean, hoirever, agreed to pny up to S 3,000. 00 
to aoauixe the second aortgage notes, IcaiaediAtely upon the oonveyaaoe 
of the title to hiss, fineir^a nade jj oonreyrmee thf^reof to his irife, 
Christine D, finaiaan, who thereafter held title, Leight & Qxmpnnf 
suapended buaineea on February I?, iSSO, whea a petition in b«akrupt®y 
w^s filed ftgftinat it in the United Ut^tea Diatriet Court for the Uorthera 



(" 



's^i^'sit if^m Avi^i {)t «t«ir«wod «M^Jtol #1 «tfi«|»o« ban 9tmm4 h^tMimum 

#Xti3^l9i> vfit to v0lr el atat «<f Ji^X^MMtft i««i#»e ittOtt 9aimt9S*t ot »^li99m 

si «u«sl e^oft2Krti9«tA lcoa«M «rfM« Mt 1« cluMMf to tftitean b b9aMtb9m 

{») k9nt^f> tiMmtiir ^9^tiU99m 94$ to tlisttt". *9tn9il9 9JLA !• \imMa 

^liv iX9 %fis 9%ao 9» <^) £>iw 4lt«0«et(i 0^1 03 9kilt 9A$ VftVO 9iLB4-9i 

%99i> 9t Y#tt«<i»t»il« feM ^9mt9t tm9i 9^tt^rmm #nlt ajti n.9tmu 9ilu9\9i> 

%t»dt «ob o# 08 b99x%9 itmiwi' twer Mft th •SjOfMHf* bo«f| «i atUNMi 9Ai 

n9i9ti%9f€9htki B» 3i!liri/o«« «tt«(Mr««q Mt# «« iqiJiB^Mi Ae(^»«i» # aMs mv 

t>*,XX<?*«Hi «»Ti/#li«i/Tr to »»i<dotaq; •*# !• »»««S«rf «lt %tA ••9tii vatioH t«* 

,7 9i«.te « t©t eC.CsOet to «;5tnif» bl9*taa aa bm» ««*<m«irf«i« ••«% b999M»tmL 

bad ©rf» ,iX»i«.«F 8««odT to XBdi9t<l s ^Uabmn MiraoK *f>4i 99*9m9 n 

«««fcrfT fc»ffiot bPt ,8alMi«wf fea* UMl atilf 9* 9S0lt 9di 9k Uvt^tat ofi 

5i»f{# Tot «»»o« «»§«»8tt«» i«#>«4» M^ 1© a«i«i«*M Ml^ m ii*IWUi« 

b«#aOftH» rtiaBRflIf ,»ltli \t -»»ta«MT* •*!# Iffl» JfOllMUM ml ,9%iltt9%ift 

ansET^X tfiA tti» alii \im ll»b9aSi 9Mm9€t X^lam9b»t e# tammLt9al mb 
jqft«Mc« .analtr'^iW© l>A«*t© IX* t« tiie»«»« flw «tl» •in teA JLinftW^ 

rc,?>^'0«^f o* qu "^m 0* fe«*t»# ,T*T«««4 ^««»fllT •«^i5ai'W» i)il«9«B M# 

';-o«jit«m»«e Wf* ae^if ^X*f»il:=««uBl .««ro« 9i$9]^ium ba9m99 9A$ 9ti$ip99 9i 

,9tlir RJtf ol ta****!* woffs^T^i^no© • •ft«« »M»«Jif ,«i«l ©tf »i»i^ ♦itf lo 

ftT»ri»^ij*t »«t* w©-* !Ni«»^ *«lit*«lu »»*^d4 b9thni 9fis at U *«il«a* 1- 



Oistrlot of Iliiaoi*. .Po#8«a0i0n ®f tiae proj^yty *a« t&Jt«rn ever by 
th« a«w owaftT ®a &v "mtoTis ^'ishmsTf 1, lf30, Wpoa 90 dolEtga the 
Tiaftaaas psld iei^t .& 0oii??atty tM sua ©f |7,a71,X8, b«lag p«sysB«nt ©f 
all the bonds aa4 eoui^ne theT«t©foir« tafcen up by Lelglit & 0©«psBy, 
As » result 0f this payatst, all boads and eoupont du« sad lin^^id 
up to »=Bd la^ltiiiBg iSovemlHsr 3, 1139, were rettr«dl aad <sane«led. 
th« i^'«>ierml prettetlTe oostmittAd for th9 boiklboldSTa ef bonds us^et- 
"ifTlttttn by Lei^t & aoatpmngr wma forsied en th# «7« ($f it® banksruj^tey. 
j*rior t© the trsnsfer of the title to th« 'i'ln«s8sns, tli« ^ainll* lia4 
tuTBftd over to the g^iwral toondlioldort group, whloh ^'^s negotiating 
^ith Tinsasn, oertsin aeouaaiisted ineotm froa the property in the 
amount of 13, OSS. 50, After tke tlnsmms too* 0T«r tbs prtaises, 
this g«BeTal teoBclhoiders oa^altt«« turned over th« a^id nneuiailatod 
inCi>fB« in the amount of «3,085«&0, to tho TinsBuma. l>.% tfe*t tl»o 
tJi€ bonds on tli« -%yne Manor Ap^rtnsentt had not been e«^ll«d for 
d«s>o«lt. j%ppell««i« maintain that t)s« aianoy so turned over constituted 
n. partial offset to the aoount a4v>«noed by the ^insaans to plmoe 
the issue In good atanding, Christine D. linsawin opernted the property 
froa February I, 1330, to July 14, 1933, »t whioh tiae a t*x reoelver, 
appointed by the County Oourt, took over the oper««»tl©n of the building, 
the Tinsanne did not pay the monthly deposits Ofsilled for by the trust 
deed. Boada 16 and 17 o»,ae due on May 3, 1930, wt which time 
Ohristine D. Ilnsaan held the reoord title. Appellant insists th?»t 
linaaan acquired bonds numbered ii to 38 after maturity, th^t they were 
not canceled, aifcd th t they should be oonsidered conoeied. He 
(appeli»nt) argues thft a frsud -w^n oomaitted on the court in permitting 
Tinsa^n to prove up theae boads on « parity with the other bonds. He 
declaTes th^^t if the trustee end the oojaaittee sere diligent in th«ir 
efforts they woiad have disoovered th?t the testlaony of TlnsmiMB. w^e 
f^lee, as was later disclosed by his own boolcs and ree©:iK!3. Appellees 
answer that Qhristinfi D. linansn pmld the seai-Knauml instftUa^nts of 
interest begiiiaiag jiay 3, liSO, up to sad ineluding Hoveaber 3, 1933, 



r 



% 

fttf^ •9«(i(»fe o« 4^ iCTfiifibtftt •x#lM T* not ««nro w«i{t •<(# 

blj'OiJi/ ibAA aynfc •aoqM»e jOaa «^0Odr XX« ^tcaait^ Bidt lo ^liwai • iA 
.l^ftXftMiiio lta« ^rrl^ot •Tt« ^v 'S94mw^ Jiaiil^MiMii tea •# <);il 

PmU »il»bmm •/ft^MJNBMUl' •iU 0# •lilt t^l )• «»1(«S*Tt Vtf^ •# XOiVft 

•tti# i^-.d* n •MMffflJlT Ant «# ^rr>. ,-'^"\:- : \9 iMtftM aM* «i mmmI 
M»ttjr#i#e£r90 rt»v«> i^ttflnur^ «• X*Ad« *>i^ ''•'-^•« ali^-ialm. •••liHnA •#lMq«l> 

«T«rieoeT xMt « asitf Hoidkr 1« ,$CfeX «*i xi^li «l «oe£X .X XVAt'Wl*^ Wtt 

U^jri ^dt x4 tot tftXI»9 mtlmo^li \Xii^aoiC «dt v«;! ^M hlb vtuwmtX uif 

»mit tlQiA^ 9p «0S6X «£ x^>^ no •lA •muo ^l tmi^ dX sbao^i •l^**]^ 

#ttif^ •t&X«ai ^a«XX«qqvV .9X^X» bn»&m% wAt tkXMl a»»«iti'i .a ««ir«i«il» 

•««w t«dif ^3il# ^x^^Wif^ rmnti, 8£ otf XX j^i^tfaujv ataHMi ib»tU«>paj^ AnmMt 

9M •&9X0Q1IA9 b6i;»i»X«noo »d &Xvo4« t*^ *^^ ^^^"^^ «l>»X*o«,^30 #«>« 

••«Xi" .^M^ftdT lia^ lato^a enro eX4 i«( J}ft««Xo«iJb %mtmi •««.»• «ft«^l 

10 i»!rff*»IXA*wiX IwpflP-XiB'** ♦«!* IM«« «M»«iXl .'^ ©aXJaXiiH.' *«<« «*»«ii« 



1 



@ 

tb«t during this -^ylod Eo»er i» flii«»i.» ?»Trang«4 f<jr v^jtIous pexsoBs 
fco take up b#na® immfeei'cd iX t© 39 when they t>«0sa« au«, from the 
OTfcgtnal ©w»B!y« thereof; th'^t sltfeeugfe the HOtual oayi««fita t© the 
oTi^iaal holders of th« ^eniis» In «om« inatsao«s» w«r« outde subsequsat 
to the aaturity dates of the bonis* the transfCT thereof had b«ea 
negotiated prior to the resp«etl"ve a^turity d-^tea* we hsve exaaiaed 
th« reoord ^M aoted th« testlaoi^ of Mr* rin«a4a in the oirigliiai 
foreoloaure ««i3«, »nd also the testlaony Introduoed before the 
special oo!S3il3sioiaeT« aad flad that ao fraud wma perpetrated eh the 
court in proviag up honds numbered II to ZB on na e^uaXlty trlth the 
other heads, the record supports the finding of the Ohancellor la 
the original deere^ and in the eup leiHiHt^l decree thi^t the disputed 
honde were, in fact, purehraed for ollents of «r. Tiagaaa, aad that 
they were parehsaed on or prior to a^turity. 

Appellant also isBieintnins thst the ooaslttee tad trustee were 
guilty of alarei»resentj<»tioa «iad gross sMsgligeaoe^ .^nd mre liable for 
the damage osueed to the invsetors 9hoa they ar«»teBded to proteot. 
tlodeT this point he states that the bondholders were kept in the 
d'^trk ^a, to the defaults, and nn to the f??ot that Leight &^ Oeapany 
held the defaulted bonda oa n p<$rity; th t the ooaalttee a$inip«lated 
ao tht^t the defaulted bonds and eoupone in exoesa of 110,000.00 of 
Leight & Coai^aagr were ?>ald; thnt ,!-3,00O,O0 of the inooae in posgee^ioa 
of the ooBsmittee '«^i3 used to pay teight A Oonpimy on its def?»ulted 
bonds; th t this -?5,000»00 wa9 loat to the bondholders ; that the 
oomaittee ^orlted out n deal by whioh Tineman vins to M«lnt«»iB the 
future payments, but th^t the Ooaalttee allowed hla to aaaege the 
property end not to ^y a single cent oa aooount of tsjces from 1930 
to 1934, ultimately reeultlag in the appoiataent of a tax receiver; 
thit the committee stood by s»,ad permitted rinsasn to t«ilee up bonds 
numbered 11 to 36 uneanoeled without iaforalnff the investors! of such 
fact; that oontrary to the provielon of the tru»t indenture, the 
aojamlttee did not require Tinsaan to mke monthly deposlte; thf^t 



f 



• 

•ift d/iv t^Jlijijrpa «« IX* 8€ «;^ XX Jb»«Mtaiia 8Aff«d q« ^yilVolt «i #«Ml* 

b9iuq»ik «tfl ^«4(# ftvitvolk X«#j|«i«li?«iPi MA* Ml hOA «i«i[«ttb l4alsito Mt 
$Mgt bmm ^tumtii'i .m >• miaulln utt Jl»M4oi»f «»(Mit ci ««t«« «*«•< 

Cifilt al #q»a( •T»» ttcbioitbnfiMr ttf^ tmat ••#^t« •!! #aX«| «itft ii*iC9 

19 0@»COO«OXIt )e anftost «! Msoqjw* bun alasMf l>*tXu«!ktt) tNC# tAii •• 
fiei««ft8to«r ai «KO«ai lit 1« CO.COO^St #»<» (ft>i«q •X*if ^pMCEMO A ^ifsX*<2 

«ift ^i^ifir }»Y»M«dftMir mAt «# #*«x siiw O9«4)0t|t« ma* # tfr i»i«»^ 

9i{# iri«^AlMK «i fti^w a««Ml7 ifsltfs ttf XaiH « #M &«af««w M#^lni«« 

•if^ 9^aam a^ aid !»9f7«XXQ M^^imeft «tf# *«iitf #tftf ««#WMi^|M| •urfM 

0£fil ftoicT «%ae« ^o tauatbt^A se ia— 9j^ttX9 tt ^m •* tmi tm* xt««4[VBqr 
lTtdYi9o«»t xaS « 1« #ft«itai0^it «f<l' fsi ^i;rX£^»f ^ieimmitlu «^SeX o# 

rf«u>e t© eit»#«*TOi «itr ifliarrdltfi tttodtim bml—mmm SS ©# XI h^mimm 
*df ^s-Kotm^i temf *tif '^ ««iiiiv#*^ •d* ot t*«^*«oo t^dt !#•*» 
;» «rfjr j»*i8o^9fc xlrf*««» •'«•» •* ««»««lt wrixitMn ^o« bit* »»##i«w«* 



7 

they permitted tinssss t© prove up th« parity of bonds aumbtred XI to 
58 nnd th« priority of %im lnter«at c©up©na on these boiKisj th«?t th©y 
p««Bitt«dl defa«l?l» l» the aoarmyasent of lnt«r«9t slnee io','«aib®r 3, 1933, 
to the 4'*t« th® eoatpimlat w»9,.8 fil«d# andi th-»t beesws* of th« gTo»« 
negilg«nc« of the eeenlttoe, th® boftdhoidsrs oufferedl th« folio-wing 
ios3t I. Psyatsat of S3,000«00 la Id^, froa inoows, to I.«lg3it <& 
Goapaayi 2, Difaults in 1939 tajret - f4,510,f6, 1930 taxet - 16,010,74, 
1931 tRXOa - $3,2S§.@3, 1933 taxes - ?3, 500.00, a total of tl5,277.33| 
3# Placing )»oadis U to 38 ob parity a^-^^re gating '#l6,0n>0,00; 4, 
Fl^.Qlag interest o& boad« 11 to 38 foi^ Hoveaber 3, 13S^, In the aoouist 
of 4,610,7S, superior to all bonds} 5, Flf»olng Interest eoupons 7 to 
11 aup<?rlor to the bonds of the Investors, nggTeg?»tlng tl,524»00; 6, 
F*5ilure to take motion to eolleot the debt froai the asteer* «nd entered 
Into a d«sl to reloaee them; 7» Allotment of 7-l/ail to the owner tad 
|3,0f)0,0n to tkffi junior is©rtg?*gee. In oenneotlon idth .Uii« point 
Appellant states th'?t «for the gro«« negligence ©f the ©oaaiittee the 
oo«rt sUftved It and Ite ugenolea $6,000.00 ss « rewsrdl h negligent 
trustee Is not entitled to rewards, " Susawn states th^t on January 27, 
1930, the trustee, by receipt of e notloe fro« the house of issue, ka#» 
that the mortgisgprs had defnuited, and th^st the house of Issue was 
clAlialng thmt the boads on whloh defmolt h«d been N»de i^re being 
iitteapted to be plaoed on a parity; that the trustee kneir that under 
the trust Inienture, notloe ahou&d be served on the bondholders, »ad 
that neith<^r the truatee nor the ooasalttee should have permitted the 
defaults to exist up to the filing of the ooaplalnt In 10S4, and that 
the eeatbera of the oo^atittee and the trustee are liable for their gross 
negligenoe. Appellees mrint out thmt aa the bonds and ooupoaa *hleh 
B^twrf'd Hoveaber 3, 1989, the reoord shows thst all of these were paid 
and oineeled by the 'iinmmn» when they took over the premises in 
rebruary, 1930, At the tine the Tlnaoana took over the property, no 
other interest or prlnoip.ll m» du« under the bond issue, the next 
a-^turlty being May 3, 1930* &t that tleie no t^xee were dellnouent. 



T'^f*'* *»»** *<<' *!flArr£r^r> frnt^mi •d# t« t*i'oiTq fttf# Jban it 

ft¥«mi »<? / till *Xq«J«» •!<[#»# -f- 

* *'"' ' ■ . . i««oX 

.?;• jor,^:^.-o,ax -.waa* x*i^«t «• W •* Xi 

ituj&tP 9di ak ,f?86X ,J t9<SK»vo% lol 85 o# Xi ? 

o# t •ffoquoo t<r*'X**fli B^iO' . ^shnotf XX« o* noifquB t*' • 

•8 jM.l^f-^.X'^ Si3X^fr|«<t:n:rin «9tO#«WTnl •/(t )o KtoiMf •!(# •# Y«lT»qun Xi 

te« T«£nr9 Brft •# J^\X<»t to tAM^AXXA «? )B«lf# •MI9X«K ^ Sjt9b « 0#flX 

^r^loq aiili ittfXw aoX#9t»fln«o irX t70« rroiao 

•Mi ••##Xmbo«> ^ »«0T 

#ff«>^i * •ii taa it bmrmll 

,t^ ^xmwt< \tii>tiMt^t 0i bnttXtn* toe si ^^fsiuti 

3r«i/o^ ad* *.»if* , rog<»Sti:o« «> 

ilism'i&h sit>tdv ao afcaoc ■•'# sctiiiieic 

bHA «»ifti)Xoi{Z>iXO<f "■ '■ ■:? bioote f>o . any 

•*•■• ' ' ' .,.-^*A.... -~ 



the 1937 and |>?l©ip yfj-^-^rs* fe&xea isnre pnid. the 193S t-^xts, j*® » 
result ©f th« r«?iia»«»3«eBt ossJered ^ th« 'St«%« t^^x Qemslsiiion, «»«?« 
net due and, in faot, difJ n©t to«i©©ffls8 delinrmeat until July 10, 1930, 
the 1933 t9jt,«a did a©t beco^i d«iliiau«nt until M«y IS, 1031, The 
reoerd shows that feilowlng the g«a«rfil default In the payacBt ©f 
Int-eyest ©a May S, 1933, the &&<smittne cilled the bonds for deposit. 
At soon s« th« ooasalttee- hnA otetain^d n. ^e|>«8lt of in excess ®f ^0^ 
of the hdM issfue, it m©t«?di parm}%at to th« tsrma of the trust deed, 
to deei>^y« the entire issue due mnA pssyable, a.M cslled oa the trustee 
to injstitute f©r<?oloeure pTo«««<tinga* Prior to tht tise no requeat 
hftd been made ©n the trustee to file '^.. foreclosure. Under the proTieiens 
of the truist iuilentuire, the trustee w^a not required to foreclonife, 
except upon the reouest &f the holders of 20m ot more in prinoipfOL 
"ifflount of ©utetandlttg hoeds, Ghrlatine w', linsmwii pj^id sesi'^anual 
installments of interest beginning M«y I?, 1950, t© ftB«3 inoluding 
isiove«ber 3, 1333, nggregating «36,96S,50, During the period ?*en Mrs. 
tineman operated the pir©|>©rty, (fro® F^bniTy 1, 1930, to July 14, 1933) 
in addition to the pwyaente of interegt aggreigstlng '*:^6,^S,50, the 
Tinsmans smAn dieburse^aents ma fcillowe: 11,745*50 to Aieboldte in 
payment of ©arpeting; <|4,BS1,S0 to Mmet Bros, la peyaent of the eh-s^ttel 
mortgage not^s; |7,S47,48 to holder of Junior mtxttgngB, and in exoese 
of 1900,00 on ttoker p&yments, i3ar(yiig thie period ill of the income 
wnis siteoounted for by the tln«»ana and applied in oonneotion with the 
property. In •^iditioa, the Tinssinns supplemented the income tTGm the 
property with their own funds to the extent of over l^,(K«!).oO. it 
^^3 the ^dditionml oontributions aade by the 'finsastne th^tt laade possible 
the payments of intcreat fsNa 1930 t© 1933, and the other disbursements, 
which were of benefit to the bondhoMers, The epeelal ooaBBl sis loner 
found th^ t eliaiastlng the payment* to I.«lght & Coaip&ny and to the 
holder of the Junior mortg?««g«, there ar^s a et^^ oontributlon by the 
Tin««o.n8 of 19,846.17 for the benefit of the bondholder®. The 
eeoumjlMted iaeo«e ia the aaount of f3,085,50 in the hands of the 



e «A ^tt^xiti f|iy[^.«i9 *tliiq 9\em ««(ttt^ imf^X rotrri, bam TC6X •til 

.r?£ex «CX£ tiu<» li^a«f jTa^i^fliXak «tM»OfK/ ton bib ««o«l ait «tflus 9ub t^a 
•tf? •XKCii «ci \fii Lltau $Dtmpali»t Miooocf #00 ttb wBXjut f.K(fi sdt 

• ti»oqti& 301 ebacKJ mfl lisXI^e ft«l#JUM«e Mfl ,^6X «C x*^ <><> ttftt'tfci 

|(<;^ "Ye Mftoj&d flX to #i«oq»ft r l<i«fljl:j»i^(^o hfid ^tfimttiampp nat mn noon 9 A 

«jM»«fr #«yt't «il# to mmtfit *ti$ ot taMtntmii bmt^M ti ,fijM»ai Smod •£$ )• 

»fttittnt tO ac bulifo bar ,«XdAT«q[ i»ts ^ub ftiitai »!ri#a» »dt mtnlmUt ot 

tt^irpav on 9mli t*di of x<U'X% •tJtfflbAseoiq »%i/««X9fttot stu^Tiiirtiii «# 

•fifiitiTeiq 9{i# T9&aU . 9Ttfi»«Xo*v<»t 4 •Xil •# %%tmni ^t ao ttAM n^ttf Jk«<( 

«»it«X««t«'i 0^ &»Tls/p«it ;r«ff «i>v ••tmnt •At ^^tittanbat i^trxS 9A$ to 

Ijtqt^atrq ai 9t:«i TO «I06 to ttol^Xotf Offt to tu9ap9t *At ooqi/ tqtoxo 

XfiiinAjn<-iji»« bisui AMHmil .0 taX#«iYiCS •ttaotf :^lbnBtu$u9 to Maro** 

jinll^f/Ioi^X i;>ix^ o# «OISti «!^ X'^^ 3^ifiiita«<' t9if9al to ttaoiaXXfftaAi 

• et^r flOfHr boli9q mdt saXitjC: •0£,8^,a$^. SaitriSfK^sn «$S8X «S to^Taoroll 

(Se*X ,*X xitf^ c* »OSeX ,X ^potefM sott) «x<^'*QOV<l O'^* bot^'ttqo UMBtciT 

tmt «oe«38€«a^| 9aX^^»f(T3$« »t«TO^Ai to B$amxmq nHf ot lloitX^&« ai 

ai B$tled9t.'!( 9t Oa*9J^T«Xl t«r»XXtt 9» otfc9«o»TiftfaiJb tfceflt 8««ief«aiT 

X9i3(i^ »AS to ^AO0X«<I ^^ .«oie tmM ot oe.XdS«^ IsmitoqiCAO to tatst**! 

8009X0 at btifi ^9^«Titys»m toiAirt ^^ TOJbXoif ot 9^«TM«T$ {to^oa dssiilKe* 

MMoaX Oift to XX£ £!oiTOq aid* fTiiC ••ta»MX«(! toiot« no CO.OO^I to 

fttft dHw aoi^OflOfloo fli boiXqqo iMi« MumnXT Ojrfir ttf tot £>9irx[i«oi>a o^v 

•jr# tBOtt ovoeoX Old b^ittm^lq^us tmimman mtii ^npiilbln al ,y^^«^<^ 

fi .T.oro^Offt f«tt> to ta9fX9 9dt «1 ttctjut on* tiorf# di^i» t*T«K[*«Q 

?i^i«80''; *?<»» * tii 9StJm9atJ' •At f^^ 9btm taolta^lttaotf Imeoltibbs 9dt B*m 

.iiyn«s«iiTirtf»it »«rf#o 9fS* iiM ,t?«X Gi 0?jex s9«t ?«»itstfli to BtunmxB^ •nit 

'zsaoleoXjMBOo XaXooct* «^ ,97^l>Xoftfc!croc} tif# ol #it«a»{I lo 9rii« cioiifta> 

»rf:^ 0^ feflf X/141K0C 4 titgisJ ot ttnsiBx*^ 9(lt Tsflit»aJLmlXif Ic^At betuo^ 

»d# Y<* flol*yrfJtT*i»©o fiifi^o ,« •»» Tndt «03i«9#toii ToJtfl&(, orit tn r^bleA 

»rft .©x«l'XoifiMto<l »if# to »it«wo! 9Ai lot TI.a^a^GI to WUMMIT 

•lit to »^»tf oiff ox &S.S80«eS to tnu^m» 9di at 9ms.i b^ttJLuaum^m 



of %h« pr©p«rty. &.« th» Randal A® sade amofe iineost svallable to the 
g«ne?«i bond.&ol4e3f« ©©fiwitte®, tM- i«!.ttCT body ha<i «- rlgjht to turn 
it aver to ^r. llnaaBtta at tti« titss h« took avsir th« property. At 
tlfefit tisMi ao •lef'iuita exlatcid vijMl#r th« bond iasuc. the speolal 
oc»!aH»itsiaB«¥ fouisd thf^t th« payoent to i«eiglat ^ CoHip»»ryr for %h» 
defmuXted bonds mud omipoBS ims aade out of the personal funds con- 
tributed 1^ the i'in«««n« ftod aot out of th« inooa^ frea the property, 
f« are of tine opin4©» tbp.t in -^il of the»« findings, th» sp«ci«il 
Qotsiaission^r w«a ri^t. ^s to tfe© ol?».iaed loss to the bondfeoldtrs 
Iti the mnpeifmnt ©f t««««, tfe# reoord ehowo that the property 'r*o 
op«Tat«d by t»it r®o«lT«r« of the Seuaty Oourt stod th« Jirouit Court 
froa July X, 1935, to Kebrusry 1, 19M. On gebr«=;Ty i, 1936, aa 
order w«8 entered in the t^n rtoeiverobip proe#edinga di8ai««i,ag tho 
tax rooolTor suid plaoing Ohristlne u. tinsaafi in po89«8sio» upon 
the condition th»*t all inoooo fr<ws the propt^rty be Applied oa t*xea. 
She entered into poetjeosion and operated the property imrstiwat to the 
order fr©« yebrufsry 1, Itse, to April 30, 1937. H#r huabsnd, H«^er 
S. tinamisn, aoted >»« her agent froa rebruwry 1, 1936, to the rt«te of 
hla d,»ath, M:reh 11, 1937. Fiarauflmt to the court ordes^ mil infioiM* 
during the period of operr^tion w%s applied on aoeount of t«x«s, Ur, 
fiaeisan reoelved no ooeapene^^tion for his eervioes, ^^itbough N^yaeats 
of ISO. 00 a BioBth up to b tot»l of t&iSO.OO irere deducted for rental 
of fiirniture. Aa eoon ^s the ,:,ii»,B of reorganisation was (Agreed upon, 
Christine -J. tlnaaan deeded the pr©r>erty to MRrriet Manning, na 
nosninee of the eoaaittee, for the parpoeea of the plan, %nd inaaedisstely 
theretsfter the ooae&ittee o<a.Qsed «e order to toe entered in the fore- 
olosur© prooeedlnga , peraittin^ torrlet Henning to r«t)sin poeaetsion 
of the property under bond in lieu of reoeiverehip, &nd directed the 
said tlarrlet iienninf to apply mil the inoo«e tOf*«ird the pj^iyment of 
taxee. fhe ooswittee employed MorisftB U f^endaU to supervise the 
oper^^tion of the }3reaiBe9 on behalf of {J..rriet Henning, upon a 



• 

ATI/' £M|jf i0««l .«atf«£ mii ^'9i9i*ltmco •fbiotihnoti i»ttm9% 

$Ji ,%tTmi0x«i *^t tfivt) JioQt •«( mat 'Mi$ t» wmBnt'i «tjii o«f two ti 

•^C^<NP»t«)i «rft Mnt MboMri mdt to #»« #«« im» limtmil^ «ui^ tK i^^utfiTjr 
•t;»£>I«il{¥(c»«r »tf# »# ttM0£ ^ewiAXo •<<#- o# wA m4agji% Mir -s:«ii«)ie«i««io» 

»i^ Sfijts&iMith Biiai|}9«M»««!Q %tawtnim0t xm •4# at i>»«ft#a» «r* «sx>%» 

ae«^i/ atiise'»*itOi ai mm^a^t «u aiaitAXxiK) 2i^tMX<; teM t»TX*o*t lus^ 

•«oX4t# a A Jb»jtXcqf« iKl ^v«<iot$[ «^ «o«T «»o««X XX« ^''i!^ «c>X#X6a«« mAf 

%••»?' ,; I'f'^^MH -ir^r ,^r^S ^OB XXsqa o# ,a^ilX «X t*»«««fe-i «o*3t tsctq 

■r.< • _ :fh%& ttvcp dittf •! tflountM^ •VCSX «XX 49% ii «K#Afit elij 
, ^'>er"\# lo ♦fl^^oooi? /w l>«iXX<?<i« miv «oi^*THi^o lo l»oi«»<i tii ^4 

.i;f<i.>t-:\.>-..:i iiv oC-^f*X/' ^saeiTTnc r/l=1 tct floX4««s9igi»o* otf fettvisr*-^ nrr- 

,;,; • ^'''-r-,- new «iei }<iat^i^Bi^*v ^« «*X<< fwt* •« «0«i •* •»Xir^jUnu/l lo 
Xisit«liH5««»i baf<> ifsnM •*♦ 'fo ft»«i»«;ty/q »ti,i rot »«»tii*B5,0« ftd* to 99JsUmM 

«il# l^to^nXit) ^ii<n «qi:4«««viiM»ev to tmll rJ. btuj0 %Btifiu x^vAcjav; «4f t« 

t© Jiif»««^*«r »«i* fc«**'0# aiBoewti »/4* XX* i|£(i<|4i ol yU<Mi»ii f#i«x^li 

* ooe^w »a«i^»« * •«aX«^ .iir«*«i« 



10 

90iBp«n9 'tion of &>^ of tb© gTos-'? ina«aKi, The i?eo©rd 8li»iiHi th^t *11 of 
the inooae »a.s s!ioo©u»t«d for and ua«d fa^r the b^'s^fit of th«» »roj;*rliy 
und the firat «oTtg«fc.« teon<ihoid0ra, and tb^t the *l3aaj«A,ftii oontft'outed 
^ftrg« auAS out of their personal funds. The tmstee astd the taemhstM 
®f th« ixjadhclders oomaittee ^ere obliged t© exercise «» smsiiid aa4 
honest diseretlon In oiling the bonde for deposit <^-nd instituting the 
foreclosure prooeeding. ^ are unable t© fvgree with the oontentl^n of 
ftppeilant tfe«t the aentoers ftf the eo»»ittee «n€ the tra8t««i^ or either, 
were guilty of aiarepreeentlng the situ^'tion to the bondholders, or of 
!S:ny negllgenoe. It does not apj^'-r th«t the hondholdera ©taffered 
any h»ra 1:^ the a«la.y in filing ^e ooaplsint In foreclosure* fh« 
sorturfttoTS (the H<<)n(i^lla) were not relesaed froa liability* k 
a«fieienoy J-adgissent ws*9 entered e^inst the«. 4fter m o?ir^f«l perwemi 
©f the reoor<i, we oonolude th*»t the contention of 3\i«a«»n th«t the 
trustee «Bd the bondOiolAers eoaseiittee were guilty of negiigenee B^nd 
misrepresent '-'tion which '^fuset d^mM-f^ t© the bondholders, hfts not iMen 
sustained. 

Apipellnnt fnirtbcr argues th^t it "as the dv.ty of the ooart 
to disapprove the sale, to fix aa upset prioe, mad to dir«<»t the 
trustee to bid under the powers rested in it by the trust indenture, 
the plan presented to the Chenoellor eoateBplftted the ore<^tion of a 
oorpors'tlott trhioh w»8 to acquire the property, it^ the isiusnoe of 
eeaaon stock to the boi^ioldera in plaoe of their bondia. 87-^/25& ©f 
the 9took i*s8 to cjo to the bondholders and l3-l/2^ to the owner of 
the equity. The oorpor-^tion w^s to j»y ^3,ooo,oo to disohnrge e, 
^5,400.0aO junior lien, nnd to assu«e all eoats of foreclosure, 
reergaaietitioa fees, expsnaes end unpaid tax^s. The stook «tts to be 
held m n 'Totlag trust for « period of 5 ye-rs. the plan w«« »odlfied 
to the extent of (1) reducing the owner* a ellotjaent froa ia-l/t5^ to 
7-1/8^; (3) the appointment by the court, in lieu of the ooawlttee, of 
two of the three trustees; (3) aOiortentng the dursttion of the trust 



-T^.llMt fifaJbjC^xttnod •/!» i/i4i V44Q«(ji #011 »%><' #i ••«««t4i3|Ml 1M« 

>;i unRBiri^ lo aoiteftaoo tit $ttA$ mbiUma^ 9m «A««e«« mm \m 

,imaMimm 

^t}Ai #»u . ' -t/ t)*7a9v B«»«6Q. ai^ t*bnij bid af *9ftn3 

u-}lt'9tp ^i b9i»ls;^niao9 TailMPamOU 94$ o^ t»la»«»iq MMlq MiT 

':>aeu»ei •jff baa ^xtX9ko%q «Jt<t 9<xljtrpo« «1 •«« jio^Mr «oi«"««ixoo 

>^^d^^V^*?8 ••Jbao(i xi9tit to Ma A ti^ »ftJ^I»i(bae4 94* •# M<&9#« «ia«K«t 

s«o t4# ot i£U'-^i ^«« «itei>XaiaMio«r 9dt o9 mk •* *«<r i{»»^» ^^^ 

^nriJ9elt>9^6l )9 •'«oo XX41 tAtfeeii ot ba» «atiX ««i««t 00*CC}*«i| 

9d 9i CAW itNDJr? aid «MXis# b4««aii/ iiMu» tAMiaqx* «»»«^ GoJLtM9iMe%mmi 
t»t\tb<» M^ iT •«j»X 6 ^« J>oii:©q « "1*^ 99tfxi »fii«o^ « ni b-Ui 

lo »9tJ#l««»o 9il* l9 i»«|X iU ♦fiUAoa tri* xd tm9mtfU<im» •^* (^) I'i^^U-^ 
Hurt ^Ht \o aolfni;^ aH* ^la9tTi»ti9 i?.) i999$esnt •«trf# tit* 1« •«♦ 



11 

frosa five t© three jr^aTs, and (4) r«clu«tlon »f tfee f««« af th,® oeuiBBittt® 

aad its ageneie®. tith tb<i8ffi wodiflss^tlens, tto.« ©©wrt a.TCi?#v8d, tlie 

mXe fts4 th« plum oa Jvm^ 30* 19^S« and rest^^t^ad tullag @n thtt 

obje«;tlona to the eesmis&Xonet^a TeQom^nAutiQns to pay fees to 

ftpTXRilaat'a counsel, la tb« ©*»»«» of l.eTy v. ,Br^nil»m.y«>^j;.5rae,a, Mlldj^ 

g-orio * . 386 111. S79, ?^nd rirat ^^tioaaial B^itm. v, 'H^rifR qrrtry Eiemeh Bldy . 

ig prp . f 365 111, 403, WIT Sttpi^ae Ooyrt reeognired the rli^t of « 

court of ehoaoeiry t© fix ^a uiwet prle« in gwrtg^f/e foreclosure ^^^les, 

«ftille the truat indenture provided th>t the trustee might bid »t asf 

sale, au«& inatrumtnt did not r«ouire the tn.s»te«» tc 'bM, A,pp«il»iit 

argu«a th?-,* it wrs th« d«ty of the chAne«llor to fix an upset prioe 

»ad direst th© trxist®® to bid, PnrKj^raaing th# l«agu«»g« of the aryn 

Mawt Beaol^ o«ge, «r« are of the opinion th t under the provlsslons of 

the tr>i8t dfted and the oirQue»tit«ao6a of this C'lae, th« Oh.«iao«Ilor 

did ftot err in r«=> fusing to requir* the trustee to bid, «ad that there 

waa B© nft§ll^«noe or fraiur* of duty on the trustee' jb part in fsiliag 

to bid. 

A.ppeliRnt also asserts th»t th« plan and grnie were hoth 

unfair. th«r« is no ohalleage to appellant's stRtcaent th?>t in order 

to -wpprove «> ;sj>iie ooupled with a pl.«»n, th^re mo.»t tee two r«<|wi»lt»9, 

nmaeiy, r t«3ir pln>a aad a f*lr $Hle, He argues th-st both the plan 

and the sale ??«re imfi'sir, 8e ohwrges th'«t the original plnn tendefd 

to deprive th« bondholders of 15> of their seoiirity, and th«t the 

aaeaded plan deprives the* of 10)« of their aeourity, i>ue t© the 

ohjeotioB of appellant, the oommo® stook sllotted. to the eouity owner 

ff»8 redweed, from l:?-i/2^to 7-l/3;i» the junior «ortg)ag«e wn^ paid 

C3, 000.0%, &t 37|> of the faoe (mmafit of the saortgag*. He o&lle ©ur 

i^ttentton to the oa»e of O'^se r, lo@ Ana«»lea l.u«ber ^^ .. 308 0» 9# 106, 

(the reorganisation of si eorporptien ^nde-r Seetion 77B of th<? Brankruptoy 

Aot), vhioh holds th t the stoekholdera of sn insolvent eorpor^stion 

ia ?^ioh the Bt©ekholdey« h««.ve no e(?«ity t^mlning^ may )i«t T^artioimte 



a 

^.,. vr ^. lA^i« •9ir^<rr;f tat i»4i bmbirgtn •%u9umhml ttn$ •a oiiite 

»»itQ #9Sq& iii. .. .7 't«iii»Ml«l(tO fttf^ )« x*»^ ^U ^Hi* ii $"&$ ■•iinin 

T«4(^ :rA4^ froff ,!>ld •t »99e»Tt ttitf tfivp^T o# litUMAiir tU ts* tcMt Jiil» 
if^ocT »T9-7 »Xac luiff OAlq ftift #«iet# artvcar 

,¥tlit;o»« il9di " ^<» MtbXorffcnorf »-rf# •▼itqiJb •* 

blpr ■■■■- - '■ rtem tolaui •til .- s*--. ..,.. .\G\* . X ■ort ^••«fb»it ••» 



•*■■•■ 



12 

la «i pXnn of re©ygs.nis5ati6(ii unl«s@ a fr««lj s^ontrlbutlon is 3wi« by 

ftueh stoelOi^l dears to the o©^p©tftt« assets, la £liliO#;ii£_iilii_jM— LSMIl 

Oo . V, Wort ell. 39? 111. App. §43, (*b8tfft.©t ©plmion) this court s^Li: 

**lt is a jswtter of oo-jsaoia i£if»owi«dge th" t l»isln#38 «•& 
regard auoh iiatenr«ning rights !*.s h^^iBg 0&nal.l©x».bl« vmltie ainl 
th« p!?yaw!nt of oonsi4«rn.bi« «umB to get thea mi% of th« way is 
Qot uausual.** 

Ottf view ia %h^% th« lioidlBg la Q?»a^ v. t<a8,„Ang<^l0,3 l^abgr Oo ,^ mxsrfl ,. f 

does not affeot wh'*t w^s said in ghicag^ Title nB4 Xrualf 09 . v, ^o^tela,. 

In this etstt the aortgrngoys, the title hoidars nnd tbe ^wnior 

moTtgsgeea h«ve releaaption ylgjits, wnA therefore, they hsitve soi^thiag 

to ooatribute in worlelag out the plan. It la ooessoa knowlisdge th^.t 

ft bondholder}; coiaiiinittee any be unsble to proeeed with » plan of 

re©rganl«stion laaless tbey hsve dispo«©<l of the right t© redeem, m 

to i^tther tb« sale waa ixit^ the protjerty wis bid ia by the noalnee 

of the eowiitte® for -540,000. 00, Cfader the opiaioa in the Byyn ^n.^f^r 

Bmx^i^ oj'.se, it is neoess-'^ry to sddl the aaetmt of all vinpftid t^xee to 

the a»ouat of the a«ie bid to «<s©ert«lii the priee being paid! for the 

proiserty. The 9«ae bid of 140,000.00, pi-aa taxee, «alE«9 the tot^il 

«oat of the property to the depositing boMholele»r» approxisiisitely 

#65,132,13. A ooaeider^tioa of the record a^tlefies ue that the 

Chanoelior was rig^t in oonfirmlng the s^le, 

Appellsiat further eonteods th-.t the oourt ws.a in error ia 

refuaiftg to foree th® retura of the 5-i ooasadsaion whioh wns pniA to 

iofflisB Hi5Bds.ll for BMsasgefflent, The eowrt siithoris?ed the owner to 

re«ala la poasesslon tjader s bond, Appeii^at oonteade th-^t the »tst«te 

eliioh muthoriEee the ©ourt to peralt the owner to rea%ia ia poseession 

under bond, does net f^uthorlEe the owner to chnrge for sainiigeaBent, 

the o^nnx wa« a noaAaee of the bondholdere oomasittee, Althou^ the 

statute does not s%y aiqrthing abowt eoaipeasation, under its general 

equity potssers the court hsd » right to allow amaaigesaent ftee to the 

a<S«nt ap-polnted by her. *e are unable to siay th«j,t la so deoidiag the 

QhaaoelXor abused his dieeretioa. se have !^la© oonsldered the point 

thsit the fees allowed to the de|>ositaries nnd to the oommittee were 

exoesslTO* m oe^naot sustsila this eontentioa. 



u 

iJbie* ^T?/«« sii^ir {a«ifiXQ« t»CFY^ftMlA) «&^6 .«jf(|H «iii T8S >IX»t«B> .v .j|»& 

*,Lstnuatt ton 
,ii^. . Qg JAin'i' btto >X»i'f r . ti hl»» tinv #ffiftr #o»^^fi toil c*oi> 

t>iAt wmbtdmiMt Aoawoe ai Xq 9ift ^uo ^liTo* nl •iinHrtatOi oi 

••alm&a 9Ai x<f at bt€ 9i"n x^^^^otn »4(^ «t:iet anw tx^^e Aif} tt>rr^ 

o* e»x,p? bl&qiajj Lit I9 tnutmn 9ii' ■ \itnii^*^Dti sX - , 

IttHtt 9m 9mtmt ^mw»i isiq «00«Qr)9«OM( \ii Miid «Xi»« ftiH .x^r»qet«r 
XX9;t«aFlxo<Tir!q» »^«t»X«ii6notf $^lifoci»h •At •# x^^o«| •4# To *imw> 

aJ: Tt0iT« r. . tuoo ^ai r«Ar «lMB*i*o« ttscWiti/l: #ii*XXiKjq«^ 

or % - t^ ^X^Olf^Uff ttfl«0 OftX •»/IOai«lfl0JW Hoi iX«£AJ9fT AJMRVOX 

^fufmtM 9Hf 4 i- ^ ^^ "^-^^XXtafirA *feao<( i» votMir <ioX««oo*oq Hi iti«aM 

flolr««i««0<:) fli flX .» v» »i» rXlMroi! •* #ini«» tii aO«i'X<M##« dOill» 

•#fl«iio$«uMi tot u„. »- of icMmo otftf osivofitttft tm ««oi^ «lK»««( ^«fc«u» 

«tfr M^tmdtlk •oottlMioo at«ftiofffcooat otf^ to wmjm^a m a*« x«»ho iMit 

lM%9a»% •ii Tftbiix/ «iloi^«8iro<i««o f.uod« shI^iIIIPBa xa« sToa oool) otu^ftfo 

»£(# o* tool tfiMOBOlMa voXX?^ o# tOs^t * b^ t%Jmo %^i •too;;^! \Uttp» 

itUt ^iiiio*b 09 at UAi x»« o* oX^iaflu »«« •'•' *%9A X* Jb»*«4#q«|» »«ojM» 

talon •At toteia«no« miX« 9VMtf 9t ^aetintnuih mid JboeutlM toXIooeotfO 

oitow oot^iwnoo «iS« o# teA »«inJ«>i»oq»b oifr •# i^owoXX* •os'k •di t^dt 



2.3 

Huftlly, B.ppell&u% urgea that tixe d.«iii,%l of fe«8 for »®Tft©«» 

r«»dl«7«<t to/ Ills attorney, wfia iaairarx%nt«*d. fb* spect*il «o«»i9.^i©»«r# 
«lio m» t}»«T«mg?ily fftjMillt* wit^ tb« emtsnt aaS, ■«'alu« of tins servioee 
T»nd«Tfrcl fey eawa«#X for tfee s,pp«Iiaat, r«0iOiB«»i»sl«^ th?-it tfeey b« mll®ii?«4 
the sum of SigsSSO.OO. &p|«li0»ai poiat out thst all of tfee «©difl««%lons 
ia the plan Ma adopted try th6 oourt, -^^-eyt «tet ln*3.u©«d l»y th« eff®i^« 
©f o&unsel tm app«llaat. Th*»t «t?it«3®nt is «©rT«ot. UeYertMless, 
tfe« effsrtt of eoua@«l did result in benefit to the ^ndhold^Ts ia 
tto-tt %Ji« shar« of th« omtrnt is the atoefc of the ttmw eorpor^tion was 
reduced tTom 13-l/2> to 7-l/a*^j tb« d«Fe»itary f»«s w«r« Teditoedi f^eai 
|S,38©.00 to 11, §t 9.00 aad the ©©fflaltteeH fees froa l??,187,00 t© 
|S,01S.(K)j the tey» of th« voting tru«t v^m shortetiftd froai fiv© to 
three ye-ra* an^ the pTot«etive oomaitte« w'is deprlv«d of th« privllegs 
of aaiaiHg th« asajority of the truat«#s« In FjLrgt iN;gtionfl ^rjf^nk v, 
|t^..ft,lle«;;«i.qlteY .^llit. ''■^<?^y , F »« ^8^ Ili* ApP« i8^» '^ affirmed an allowaooe 
to attorneys for hondholdera who sppesjped wtid proowred ehang«« in th* 
plan, nn th« eetste was benefited toy thf »«rvld9« read«Mid by eoi^aael 
foT appellant* vnt ay* ©f the ©pinion th'^-'t he sshould '&« allowed 
r««8onRibi« f»e» to e«ip«n8»t« th«.«. Having cayef^lly oonaidewd the 
fs-Ota «nd oifcusist^neea presented by th© record, ■??« find that ISOO.OO 
is « r«i-'-'>.»ORabX« fii« f©r the aervloea y«ad©r«d hy oouns^l for «&pp«ilaBt» 

For the T«nMQrm st!*t«»d, ssll the ©r^era B.nd deereee »r»p€al©d 
fr©« n-m affiinaed, exoept the order entered Septeaber 11, 195i, whi^ 
la hereby ^ijsendled by niiowing the eum of fSOO.OO to Louis Sueassja, 
appellant, for the servleee rendered by hie aitomeyt, S© «8«end«d, 
the dcoTe«?s nad orders of the Circuit Oeurt of Oook Oownty «r« 
nffirned. 

Mils s. s©a.ifMi, P.J, hm m-Bti, j, ®o«w?i« 



t 

':««!▼»»? «rf» tr - ,jl# anv Oifv 

,»»ei»f.»^*-; tVT«9 . •atc«i.X»q<j« t«t Xnsnvoo t« 

98ftXj|rlt«i »iijr ):« !>«vJhCQ»6 tit* »»f#isa(<M> Ari^ftstatt: 94t l^r ^ f>«»r# 

*• aj. i:»«tii>* nr ,Bax .qft* -ill w f ^y^tf i»frAa. Mtjfrttfmj^ 

Jb«NroXi« 94 blutuli ^•liu i?tiS noXAiqo •dl t^ •Ti: f«9 «|tai^XX<Mi<{« rait 
%tit kmx»liJ.»AQQ iEii^v«j»9 j^XT«H .k^AjT •ir«Ba*Q»(a» »# m*! •Xc(Aao«i*97 

.*ai»Xi9^Qp it«l Xseitffoe x* b9%»b&m h^oXtim »iU "»©'i f#l: njjif^pf*''- ^-^ ^ "t 



41X30 







?~ 



or Qsic.A®0, 

305 I.A. 4 

m, smfim mum mhiY$m^ tE* ofiiiioi or ?si ocimt, 

roy soa® tira« prior to OctobeT, I'aji, oX«iRtiffs sirjwa 
»nd operated s t««vera ?»a4 aig^t olub at r334-36 west M.a41i»©a it?««t, 
Chlesgo^ ui^«r th« name of the "Olwb Hetwien&us*. Cn tb«? firmt fi©©r 
tber® was ?* t>sr and f* y«3tf?UTant, Tfe# seioond floor oonsiBted of 
two slit room fXatt»« aeparated by » solid piirtltion* The flat over 
M«, a9S4 ««s oceupled by pitaiatlff «lllia« H, Istt, «n etterney- 
»:t*lsiw, l€ oaeupled tb'^t flM as hie lio«e and a parfe tliwe ii§!w efflce, 
Th-->t fl^st w®« slao used for k«i»pla,g the supplies ajid as «a ©ffio* 
for the tf^rern aiKl oatomret busln© ?<(>. the rec©r<S !« eenfitalng ^s to 
the oooupanoy of the flsit abor© m, 2^6, On October 38, 1938, in 
©onslderiKtion of the sua of I63S, t»laiatlff« muM and leilTered s 
eh&ttel aortgmg* oovering ail of th« personal property in the premises, 
to the lirst United Finsnoe Corporation, The IMebtednesA wns t© b« 
repaid in auecessive installaenta of 116,00 per w«®ic, the mortgage 
loan »f»a «!»dft by the issvianoe by th« fln«no« ooai'^sny of thre« oheoks 
payable to olaintiffs. one of tht ©hooks in the sum of $^5,00, «».« 
Ondora^d by plR.iatiffs to the Motional Q'-^&h '^e^ijiater Ooapanyj a 
sffoond eheok in th« sfiui of fSl»9S »«t« endorsed by them to ionother 
flnanoo oofflpany, «.nd the monoy for th« bial%noe of the loma wna 
apimrently retained by plaintiffs, nn the third ch®ok w^.3 endorsed by 
thorn in blank, on Bovombor 19, 193@, defendant issued it« polioy 
in th« 8U» of #4,ono,00, inowring plslntiffs far ^ t^rm of one ye*»r 
agsinat dlreot lo«§! ^nd d«a)».g« by fire, the i^lioy is «, f't«nd-'«rd 
lasMTsttoe polioy, to which is 9ttaoh«d n ahie!?go '%9rd Standard Contents 



'^')^-< ta^ tfftr M wumtM 

,1 ; to toiiri'r ,._,. .. . , 

itivc *«X"t "-IT «nr,itM'r»q i .. . .■• , - - 

,*9i'* lal^ *^«» fl bflo ttBod airf •« <■ 

Hi «ss6X «af? t«tfatoo iio .oses .o«i «Te<f« #/rx^ 941 to xo«(«q<^oo •at 

baa •bxm »^\itKi»H •fiCdl t« at/t srf^ te aoJttatftbianoo 

«»»«X«»«qt fid# aX x*»<»<3«*« Xsnosf:^ »dt to XXjj jiai^tsroo •s-rssriroa l9ittAo 

•^v ci s-f' nfi9abnid9btti »tfT .aoi^i-YO(;to& #eiiiiiflil[ 5fl»tXall ^aiXi •at o9 

«3{99.'lo 'i^'rd;^ to ^laeciBoo »Ofiflizit •!(# x<f MMMii/ii>-^ aoX 

I t« ««« tM' ci e^fiOOifo ^di to «ad .»ttl#ai '^XcTjixe^S 

f ;xnfuimo^ T*>#*X3-»r if« o X^ixoltf^H ysi$ at ettitni 

Todfoa^ o<t m»iit t^ twavoJ>«s •sir ^«Xdl to mim *At ai jfo^do i»Ro&*« 

SUV Aftox /^«oji dii st^/Jimoo fton^fusit 

^•iX9<; ttfl t*tm»i tarta&t^i' ,i^r^U «€X Te>tfii«»^ftf£ m ,:mBitt at m^di 

t««x •no ta «i%*t H ^ot Bttt#Hl«Xq naXiwefti ,W,O^0,fr^ t« •«• •tif ai 

lS»udbfl^^- A »X toiXoq »ifT ••irXt X<^ •aftaat bat fteoX *»»tib #«fliK;^v» 



3 

Foiw, tilt body of tine paliey sontsia® n oiau»« tli'-t "ualftss othfervlse 
pTovl^«d toy agTseaeat Xn mTXtimg «'Hed h«reto this Oeaipaigr sfe^Xi not 
be lifltl^ft for leas ©y d?*msge t© lay property Insured h©y««n.der wiiiis 
IneuJBbti'eil toy a ohattel laorfegsge, and durtog the tla* of auoh 
lnowM$>Tftno« this O^mpany ahall tm lit.Me only fo? lo«® er ds^ang® t© 
any otter pTop&ttf laamrsd bereu-ndey." th« -Joateats ^oTm, la part, 
x«"^d8: * #4,000.00 ©n o^atenta (hs deserlbed k«r®iA) whli® eontaiB»4l 
Im, oa, ox attaotoed to the briok building; sltwatedl 8t34-S6 'matt 
Madiftoii ®1tr«et» ShiOMgo, Xlllaola. Mote: For laf©rm«ti©a oaiy - 
Tb<i prln«5lpai lauslae-i-;^ of th® lasured is (deserlb« nntiyre of ©ooupaaoy 
»nd aerefeaiidlae eo-^ered) Tav^ra* the tera QOH'f%Sf$ jis used in thi« 
policy sh«li (except *« otheri?ise «5r©XiD{l«d) laolud* leerohaadlse, 
9toOk, stOTft, ©fflo« and ahep furnitur* J^ad flirtup«« f?a4 swohinery, 
apparatus aad equip.«ent» supplies of ev<»ry dcseriptioa; property on 
i^lob ii»»Milty Is r«oulr«d to b* sp«clfiGraiy --^tsuateed by the conditiona 
of the policy; the insured's Int^r-reat in persons! property of others 
wt9n. th« ia«ured»s intere»t In «ruch person*^! property is sot otheirwiije 
lns«r«d} • • ♦ fh« purohwse of property on the inatallaemt or p^rt 
payraeat ^i?^ft ahi*Xl not iBYslld te this insuronee »nd this ingur»sne«» 
shall «>lao ©over the insured! »§ iaterp«t in j^ad liability for j)f&p9Ttf 
a«80rib®(i ia this polloy, puroh.^^aed oa partial psyjafints." On Jnmxnrf 
313« 1933, by authority of )? sesroh warT«jRt, fed«r^ a.g^nts found r 
still fi-ftd parufhtrRaiia for the distlilsitloa of aieoholie apirlt® in 
the flat ah®*© i®, ^336, on that day th«y aTr««t«d Ohsrl«f8 M, ?lt©, 
©tt« of th« pialBtlffa, aad ohsjrged hi« with op«r'?tiiig « still. He ^n» 
lodged ia the Oounty Jail, but was r«l«ttged on boM and ofi.a« b^-ok 
to th« premlaes. Th«^r® ^;.''« s. fire la the pressltcs on the jsomlng of 
Sitmaxf 159, 1939, ■betw««a Sj0O *.a. %nd 7; 56 si.a. 'ajstweea th« tlm« 
th?t Vltb s^^o rtl#=*3«d froa the Oouaty Jail, he ^nts in and out of 
the prealats froa tl^ to tiae. At the tlm© of the fir« th« plaintiffs 
were oper?>tlng the tawra wlthov.t n license. At the Iprll Tera, 1939, 



s 

BlltbK X9tbass9fd hrmiii \fiti»ei)itq "itte «t nt^mr-b to ••«! tot •XtfxlX ttf 

$^^9ltt d^->S(^»^ d»J-^u#i» ■»aiblluit t9it(i oK/ ot I>»ii0i: ,ao «ai 

siXtiif ai fr^i/ fic BtiiSTwOC siiL%s »rii ♦ire^vuT (fe»T»vo» ••XbaAitoT»ci toii 

,«iill«ftdeYft« •£)0X«fiX (ts>5L'X«it« »«iwfft<I^o tJi t(i»extt) XX^its x^Ziitq 

«tt»^irtdi»« t>a.« e»?vtxX) fcitr-? ^'tuflava/i QMit I^a Mit)o a«veia ,ioo#t 

AO TttJK^o*^:; ;£l«ifqXiiott»t^ tt»v3 ti» «»iXqqtf« «tflMMyii/l»« boa «tf#«T«qq« 

•jaeXlittac^ 9(i;r ^cf fcdfttf«%« YXX«<>XtXo*qe 9a o^ feft^lupM al t'IXlcfi;XX i9AMm 

er*H9Q \9 xf^»qrovq XcAoeiftQ dX #«*t»^«X s'&^uraai fti<# {ToiXoq **i t» 

^RitnrwrfJN* #«« «1 ^fr^ti^tq Xj9iK*iif»<5 rfotrt nX tBt*i»t]aX a'fcsrfijfiil 9f* n»ifir 

Jt«<? fo *flweXXpt»flX fnii tto t*^f 9c;o«c} to »B«^«ttf? »rft t /wfll 

9dfiff9^«mfii tX^t feOfT softA^ffBjRX «jtrfj» 9^ bXXi»vai ton llj^it» au^lq ieftm'xaq 

X*t«q0t5j •rot t*ii^*«f«J^Jt Ibfld hX ts'i'JCStttX 8*bSTW»«X Sil^ wrtr^?* ««lff XX««[« 

vrPtMMl tffj ".Pjn^ttX*^ XftX*^«j jB© fe^er-rfotiiq «Y^iX«iq «X..v.. ;..-/lii:o*96 

H imijot a«B«5J«f Xirr*ti«r^ ^^iran-e* £S!»T!»«a » to ti^XTorf^Mj? xrf .eSttX »«! 

fll «tX¥XQ« eXIc^odXr to noX^irXXXtaXJb 9dt x&t &ltiitt9aK^»tjiq Iaj) XXX ta 

,«#xt .M »»x««ifo i»*t»»T?ffl t»^J^ V** ^^rf* **> •dees •«« ••©tf* t^n »rfr 

r*w »K .XXX** s; s«'t*'«*?«' '^^Jtir »iii b^xifm bUM »alti*nX«Xi[ ad* t© Mo 

i«s^ «»»;» tfln Btfiotf utt &a£r.9X»*r a'^rv tird «Xiet X^auQ' ba;^oX 

to V>titiFtOtt 9ilii a^ «»»i«o«<? »Ai til 9t£i M tJNr fttcOrTT .edsXieatQ aiftf 9i 

^d two i^M ni iB^s &if ,Xl/<t x*^"»^ •'^' arotl b&«»»X»- d> 

««Xt«X.«XfT ♦rf* WJt^ »<<* ^« »«*♦ **^^ ■ ^^'-^^ ^* *^'^^ ^**' '*** *^* 

sex ,Bt»t IH'!^'^ »fS* ^A ,!»B«9ftiX » »t'«Mf*Xw Btsvifjr od.1 5jiiij««oqo »t»« 



3 

%h9 S«d«raX Oraiui Juxy of this dletrlet ;eturfi«d isa In^ildtiMBt ^gislnat 
Vit© mncS otMafs, ok'?rglag th«» with waiawftsily ©p«r«.-tliig a etlll, 
H« «^«s eeBVltrfcecJ nnd 3i&nteJa<J«d t© strve s term of two f«s»8 in the 
Ftdarsil rettit«Btl«»ry nnd to pay oert»ln fines and |j«ft«lti«». On 
my 39, ldS9, pl>5intiffa filed their et^t©!««nt of olnla in the 
liltoj&iolpnX &nvs% ©f Ohloag© and 'A8k«d for ^udg^nt «?g»lnst defendanii, 
b».««<l on the fir# le«s they «rttff®T«!d while th« eh^ttela w«r« aer^Ted 
hy th« in»tt]p?tBee iwlicy, th« «»•« »«!» tri#A befere th« oowtt without 
?». ^ury and ye«ulte<t in a flndlni^ and Judgffl«nt sgainait th« defendimt 
in th# sua of 13,471,00, to roverse whioh this sippeml is prosseuted, 

fhe first point urg«d by defendant is th<<t the hr«>^^eh of 
the condition in the poiiey against th« property being inmabered by 
a ©battel asortgage b»;ra th« pl^sintiffa* right to recover. Pi»intiff» 
ooBff«d« that under the Ifiw, « provision th^^t th« in3tir«no« oosp^ny 
»hall not bn liable for ioas or iiaaiag« to p«T9©a}»i property while 
iBO«ittb«red ^ H ahnttol «ortgng«, i« ▼»lid. Pl*intiff«, howeTer, 
8e»t«nd that th« l«agttfi£9 of tho ahio«gtt Bo«rd Stnndi^rd Contents ?©ra», 
D^ioh w« he,v« Q«ot«d, n«gsttiv€« the print<?d laBguagft in th« body of 
the pelioy. This fcra stntea that *'the terai QomEms m used in 
thia poiioy ahall (exeapt as otherwise excluded) inolude • • • the 
insured's interest in personal ^^T^perlty of others when the Insured's 
interest in suoh personal property ia not otherwise insvired," It is 
the Xnw of Illinois that an ambiguous insur^noe oontr"»ot lis to be 
oonstrued soat strongly s^ainat the insurer, "fhe rule, however, 
ftpplies only in oftses where reneen'^bly int«'lli(j^nt aen will hon«$!tly 
dl*JB»r as to its aetning. If 8 poiioy of insureaee ia auaceptible of 
two interpretations, th t one will be adotsted whioh ia aoat f^t-^r&ble 
to the Insured in order to indiainify hia for the loss i^ioh he has 
«uat»ined, *fhe rule th^t ?!ijabiguoua Iftaguage ia to b« construed a^st 
stvongly !?.^iBst the insurer does not ^.uthorixe n iperTeraion of 
langusige or the exeroise of inventive powers for the vuTpone of 
ereating mn aabiguity where none exists," ( Crosge v, lUMba^ts of Honor. 



t 

miixf lit tnt*>Wf_ ' 99t a 9Tt9t et bm&tfta— »B 

. .i9q bits? aBai% «ri«#T»e x»si oi bsiuf x^Mitmtiija»'' i»t«ib«Y 

*i(t at iRlftln \g tnm .,-^$ ktXit tnilniirXq ,61:.. , ^nfc 

t>'f»*r»7oe &T9* dt tXltfv !b»T9llti« t^^ 0**^ *'si'^ ^' ao b*«jiitf 

i^K^^o^'tftJb M^ ^ft0/n;£^f) #B»fli;if|>i/^ bafi -^ihaXt s tii hi^tXue^ baa xxuj^ m 

^d ^«%9K^ t.>-. tO-i(X(K{ »tLt at aoltlbaoo »4t 

ftoX V«1 X 6^ #o« iX«l« 

i3i JHMNv <" aitff •lit" #«d# va^A^a axot ftidf »\»lh 

lift » * • ati/Xoi:! ;i)«fttfXoxt »«iwi»<#o »* #4MX«} XX*d« XOiXcKj slili 

f»*hmmnt »iC.t rt»if* »7»«i*o to x#ti^ r fo*T*4 Hi *8»»»#flX ••hrtwefll 

al 4fl ".B^Twiefti »«iir»»d#o #ofl ai x^s^ »<i9Ttq Xiai««n«i does b1 it«»i»i»ai 

«{j ^^ "■■'- Ttsoo •ctAffT«}»ai (iiM»(r3i«te« a* ieAi aioaXXXI t« veX a^ 

Xl^'»*«>7-'f Itt-^ '"'•"' •♦,.».. ffr..-.** xXrf«fio?* '■•'•"' -*'/•?, r.'.-,v „c,»Brt ol xXwo 8«»iXqg« 
t6 si'<?x.tttr»ocju,-. .. ...... .:-...... .,.. x^iloq ... .,j,.-_~. ~ 8#Jt o* »« t»tliJb 

-f!i4?ttfy?t *»WJ SI lioXifw fc*>Q«bB wf XXiw i«o #>u* ,WJol#/»*«iqt«»«i <w* 

3'8C«' fetxrrtftntO© 9tt et »i -■^-.r-.i'dsp j-rf^f utm »«(T*' •bftai^jTiMra 

to noieaftyt*? m »iMtdtifu imtUn^M xi^a9mi9 

to »9CC!XUtV 9Ht t«t M«weq •▼X^BRVfli to obXotm* 9x1* to •8Nii3ia«i 



4 

SS4 ill. »0, 66, ) l-aaiistiff Inisiats th-^t th® yt<l«r aby©g?».t«8 the 
terias of th» poiioy «rith ref©reae« to ineui^Taasjee, a»d tiij?t oaij- 
s^Quently &t tb« ti»e of the i^sa th^rt. T^nn aa Tlol*stiaa of tfe« teras 
of th« i^ollejr. the oliattel ^ertgstge «l%u«i« in the pellejr speeifioally 
pxovldUis %imt the oonpftay sh&il m^t ^ liable fer lose or vla««gft te 
property iiMmasibered li^ a chattel «ortgs^g;« '♦imi^a^ oth^r«is« pTovided 
hy agy«ee«n.t in writing jK^rided. hereto." Mo ftgreeaMiiit in writing 
wi?s addod to the i^alley, unleae tho '*eontents foMi* is to he o^^struM 
»m 8uoh added HgTe«:misnt, It will h« o^erved th«t th« lAUgm^ge of 
the oontejats for* upon li^ioh plaiatiffa r«ly a.8 ihrogRtiag th« t&rss 
of the policy with rcfcroneo to incumbr'^iiooa, defiaos ^oontenta" %s 
inoludiag, unless othcrwloo «xolud«d, tho insured" • interest ia 
pergonal property of others. Heae«|^ the insured's interest in the 
isersonal property of others io net vithifi. the eover??^ »f the polioy 
if ''Gthsrwiae exoludcd" hy the teraa of the policy. In our view, 
there s^-^s no aabiguity ia the language of th« policy, *-e *«re of the 
oi?inion th??t there ■sf s no «greo««nt in writing extending ooveraire to 
the ?>pr»on»lty in the pr<&mi«e8 while inouaibered hy the ohattel «ortg«?ge, 
Therefore, plaintiffs eould not recover. 

fhe second point nrgued by defendant i» thj^t the loss oam- 
plfflined of occurred uliile the hasmrd was increased by »e«a» vithin 
the eontroi or knowledge of the plaintiffs, and is excluded froa 
Qovera^, a clause in the policy provides th??t unless otherwise 

rovided by s^prepaent ia writing a'lded thereto, the company shs%ll not 
be iisbie for loss or dftnegs * while the hmjrerd is ineTe«».sed by any 
a^fjaa within the control or knowledge of the insured, » fhe r»id on 
the still ooourred on Jarauary 13| 1939, at n^ioh tlae Charles &i. ?ito, 
one of the pl«intlffa, w«.a arTeatedi^ The still ce»,aed oper-^ting on 
thftt day and w«s reaiewed from the premises. The fire occurred on 
January ^9, 1939, Therefore, ^t the tiane of the fir© th«?re wsa no 
increased hffi.««MFd because of the opemtion of the still, mmvet. 



»a^^ &$*faJi niifflluX? (•«• ,0t .XXI *«* 

XXXA0ill9!»<^« ^MI«;c:i «£ll ai ••jvaXo !»vs^^<xo8i X»i#>frfo arf? .t6tl«rr •!(# !• 

&<»tfliiif»»fi 9fil «# «i **■««% »#a«<riH>9'' •d<i ^ >j.^i^ ^x^^^lcq wtt9 Ot bf^tm 9m 

la m^fiW^ewX f^ds imAi i!^4TT9«<fo »d IXiw ;fl .^a^MsfkeTS^t b•^^lf rfetm •« 

iMrr-->f •'' ^lt#j|oW« cs xX»T •tlilfllMXq ffoiifw ttosty trtol «lto»«ff«<» #ift 

:. <f«««ai n*ih9vuuit •di «l»«btfXi>xt ••i»n«dlo s»*Xa0 asaiht/iMii 

XPXXoa ffid /«voo »iif AltUlrn toa tl «Tsjf#o lo x^^^^^V'^ XiMrmitt»q 

^w»iv tvts nl .Y^iXoe BHi \v MBt*# airt" xd "ftftbuXoitw 9Pjhrr9rf*o" tl 

«(} lo 9ir f \c •^Mtr:%afi »iiS ai, x^^t^^^^'^ est t^w mt^di 

«4 ^^i-f^^n^n ^iba9ix9 sAitiTw ai #fl«»«»»a<^ on » * »t»iftJF #«d# tfeliiliil* 

•tVTOOfti If Off hXimd etli#fli«Xir «*Ta^#ir»fn' 
•««» c««X »ii^ ^«rf# ai tae!Mn\9b xd > rtiecr bodttc ttdf 

xcr b9»»»Toai «><w Jbvnuuf •dt •Itdm h%ttvt^t^^ Yo j)«uil«iXc; 

aio'ft ^^•fct/Xox* 91 ftkiLir »8llri*flX«X ainfOrti to XoT*rto<» »ri* 

<^«ri¥r?Hti[#0 9m*5Mu tfdt •9Mveitq t^iXoq 9ift nl 9etfiiX#* A '^t^/^fAiroct 

t««« XX^ >0 •43r «o#9T»fif^ l»«t;»iMi ^XtXi:v ai to«fli9i9*Ri« 1(<f fe«JbJhr0<x<; 

^ji' ti^ li»itwmtoai 9i bt»9Jfd 9iit 9X1^" fts" ^'«^ ^<^ «X<rj*JkX 9d 

tiv i'l xumat *&$ lo •^•J^oajf %o Iatiao» adt aidttv 9m>»ei 

mitfAt^ ^mi$ ttoiifiir tf ,€•' ■•.9ffjiw»© Xii#« •<(# 

a& ^i*'T»Cio ^sbj"!*© XXI ^ ,is9*»»t^t<» •*«« ,«'ili*i»i«Xc 9tf# t<i «fio 

a« l>»tiCtw>9o 9i:i"l '^ . dt mon\ t>9Vo«i^ 

«e « t9^o)«nai<T »t»£el / 



the fire dxi# to tfe© £»«* tliit ?ito, ftft«r b«lTig released ea to®nd 
froiB tlie ^©uBty Jail, o©ntiaue<i to visit tfa« pr@t9is«»9 until ttee tia« 
of tJiift fi^THm defendant Insiats tbmt all th« eireumstnneee in exridenoe 
In ©©nn«otioa with the oi»«r;^tioa of tfe« still fsn4 the setlvities ©f 
Vito« Mti&n that thesw wBiti r aorsl hasmrd at ^# tiai« of the fire. 
%« %y« of the ©plaioa th»t the faot ths^t fit® wn-n ohssTg^d with n 
cipia* would not la it9«lf b« smffloient to estv^blish th.%t ths hsBard 
was iafli«ft««d n% the ti»« ©f the fire, partloul^rly when th«r« wfts 
aiu»th«7 insured, nf^maXf williisia H» Kmtt« whose repyt'^tion ^ns si&t 
<lttestioned. Itoder thi« point d«fend»nt als© tsBint^ins th t th# 
hasardL w»9 iadrensed by th» f «ct th«t the tavern wna te«lag op«Tst«<i 
without i^ lioense. It epcrmted under ?. lioensc in 1938. I7p to the 
tiaui of the fire the plsintiffe had net pr&«uye-l 5 lie«nse f©r 1@^9« 
Tre are unsible to agree with the eont^ntion of ief«Bdftnt th-^t the 
failure to pr<»eMT« m lioenne inor<»H»ed the hs?»rd. 

For th© res^aone stated, the judgaent of the Munioipnl 3ourt 
of Ohie«^go is reversed and Judgment ie ©ntf^red here for ooate for 
the defendsvnt nnd ^gninst plaintlffe, 

HKVEHsas AMD ivmmm mm mn soifg 



fto^Mf no M»««l»rr sait««( -«»ft« ,e^iV ^ d^ tort «sii o# »ul> •nit tAt 

tc .^«i.fivi;f li^ ^ '■■r'^S to AOid^itTAQO Slit li#iw a9ltt>1ttUH>9 tU 

»%vtl *it* %e mJit 9At tm bTMsma Imtom m 9»m •inat tfAt wo/U «o#JtV 

« it km tf^»tt» ac^ o^iV ^j<ifi re«l adt #«i(^ ii«iaiq« »<(# t« •«« f« 

ift ifalXtfitf«« •« »a«ient«« «^ 1X»t#i «i ton hlumt •mIto 

■if J a»rfv- -.i ««»:; 

ni : ««!a9C>iX «> TtJbffu b«t«r«aqo #1 •ftaa*»iX n #u9Jlti« 

♦ C^'i : ii sfci^*oii. T bmA»*-rq lofi b«4 •tlit«|jU;q tiJ* «^il «x(4 to talt 



«U40 



Aiimiy c«LM^, 



>lpp 




formerly fewowo ft@ LOUft Hi^ME 




OF OKICAGQ 



App.xx«n.. f^05I,A. 498* 



MR. JUStlOK Bi8Hi:E sa^JYlRES TSS Oi'lKlOli OF fHE OOUtif , 
On 9«pt#»b«r 4, 1{J5&, AMrev Dolt J s filed hi« gusea£«d ctAtt- 
a«iit of elalffi In the Munleipal Qotn*t of Chieago. He allAged that on 
D«e«s^ber 1, 1931, he vai in poecttfllon of e«rtslii personal pvop^vXf of 
the fair and raaaonablt marine t value of $3,&00; th&t on or about that 
date th« aefeociant wrongfully aeisad tha property and eonverted tha «a«« 
to ita otm uaai that be d«»aAdad the return thereof and that defend&nt 
fftlled and refuaed to eoaply* In an affidavit of merits the defendant 
denied the allecratione. the trial resulted In a vert^iot findin^^ the 
laeues againat the defendant and aeaesaing the plaintiff* e dasumea in 
the mm of $^0. iihiXe a motion for a new trial waa pending, an as^eign- 
aent by the then plaintiff to t^arie Yyskooli i)olej« of all of plain- 
tiff* e right, title 3tnd interest in the cause of eotion, verdict or 
judgment, rendered or to be rendered, waa filed. 7he eourt overruled 
the motion for a new trial, entered Judgaent on the verdiet and ordered 
that all eubaecjuent preeeedinge be Mirried on in the name of the 
assignee. An appeal followed and thie oourt in an opinion filed March 
16, 1938, in ease Ko. S9%4S, (Abet. E94 111. App. 606} reversed the 
Judgaent and remanded the eause for a new trial. After the cause wtM 
redo^eted the defendejtt filed a counter elsla in the «um of I154.tii»3, 
grounded on a Judgawnt for eofits rendered in thie court when the esuee 
was remanded. In the answer to the counter elain the assignee asserted 
that the defendant was not entitled to a Judpient agalnet her. Cn 
Oetober ©, 1©S5©, the aselgnee filed a second ajaended sitateffient of daiai. 



/ 



4 



.i;Uv> tJUi> 



« onajius ATtrtisij 



••»o 



is .».j.c»-;v^* 



-•tA^t d«»m«s «lif Mill ftt*XoS vnltfA ,3StX «* <iic(aw^qM nO 

ii« t»if» if^XU •!! .«9^id9 to froMlO i«(/oi<u« •<(# al «!«£• )« »«»« 

lo x^')C'3<l<'*iKI I«iio«i9<t Bl»tn99 te f!oJC»»»9(i«iq itt iav 9d ,XMX «X nRHfot^tQ 

^ftiff 9u&iB to no ^Jiiir tcx>a«lt lo «tfl«V #»lftMi tATWWMM *» tisli ^{if 

•■»• •ifir bofirrvffoo r>fiA t^^<I«v2 flit &»ti«« XXi^K'^^o^c* fiadMati»s siir litAft 

Jn&ftcjlofi »<i# etlnaiw lo »|T«MTlrt n« «X .xXcttfeo o* A»aiA»« few* fe«Xl«t 

9ff$ BOiMit totM»yt Si nt ft»ifX0««*t Xsint «IT ««aoi$^«3<»XX« »(f:r telmA 

ni te-^mxah e*)tl^ai»Xq[ «ift i^aiftVAMA £«« ttut9ni»li9b »d9 9%aiM^ oinisl 

•»fiaia«!« am «aBl6ii»q •«« XAi«K« vd« ji •s«n «<»i#ea « »XlifW ,0Q$% t« auNi •/!# 

-ulAXq lo XXa \<o it^Xoa Xtoo^it^ tjfun of rttfalMlq atd* »ff* ^rf VaM 

td Idi&tsv ,fioii^9« le M»ii9 «xf^ ni ^•»'X69ai ba» oXlisr i#<tii<K a*ltlt 

Jb«X0«vwo ttuoo «f(T .t>«Xll »£y t^«s»fi{i»ii tcT o» ^o J^»nc»£o*^ tjTiiaiis'^tfl 

9»«t«M« fia« lolMsv viitf flo tniMi^iii btrtataa tUtti vbu * 10I «oX*mi •!& 

•fl^ lo 9m»a oifsr al ao &i>l«rMO otf ■r^iaXAosoo^q #iioa{»*a<fii« XXa f«d^ 

Oo^&H b9in notntqo na at t^tuoo tttdf bam A«weXXol XM^q* a4 •••aj|li»A 

•rt» tet-tovfti (806 .qqA «XXI »9S .7atfA) .SMM ,oll ••«• oi «8S«I |8X 

««« ••««• oill ^snA ,x«x^« %idft « tot 99tf«0 •!& ft*&fl«mK htm toMm^fuii 

,&«.^XI lo sm »tlf ut mlnXo t9tntsoo it l>»Xll ^MA&jioloft ofi^ te^J»oib«« 

ottfAO %tiS tt»d^ t%mt> nMt^ nt JD«<r»Mii»i t^aoo lol tfaofl^lWL a no tn»hmi0t$ 

Jj»tti— ^3jj 3fin5il«8« »d? «XflX» isi^rtx/oa ox© o» •wvtn* orf? al ♦A»ft«««tn •«» 

. d ;raiil«8» »fl•tB;»^^t e «# fr9X^l;rif» ton t«v »aiiAa9l9& oif^ ^«itt 

«8U«Xo lo ;r«eaof«^a frofifitnt! friioo^t « *oXil ••BfiXwa* o^t ,««X ,« «totfo»»0 



whi^ waa siitsatssjitially th« esm® as tht oas previously filed. Im mu 
affidavit of aerlt* th% d«reiR<"snt Jolnea les««. fhe e&use was tried toe- 
fort the cotii?* nsd a jury ajid resialtefi In & verdlet far th® plalatlff 
oa lioth the seeoad as«ad4^ atAtemeat of <ea.aisi and th« counter (^ai«, and 
d«fflage« v«rt ftsaeaeed in the eun of tS,5dO. defendant sioT«d for & a«w 
trlRl, for a Judgsi^at non o fast ante Tgrg^ieto . aafl la arr»et of |iiapient, 
«a.l of wblaih is^tioBs wtr© overrul^t; and |uapi®nt wa«. sntered. on tJie 
vertaict, to r#irer-«» nittli^ ttoin a|>p#^ 1® proeeewted. for oo!iYeBl#ae«, 
v« will refer to the plaintiff as Mej!»i# and to th« aeslgiior &® AisSr«w. 
Tli« &s8igftor, &iid^««r,and the as0ipi««» Mari«» are huet^nS and wife. 

fhe firit orltlelsB levt^ed at the Jitdpaent is tim% Mmri«t 
&• aseigaee mid ewaer of 6 non-negotiahle ohose in aotlon, did w^% in 
her pleadinge on osth, allege th&t ehe ie the aetual bona fide mriMr 
of the <^09e in »eti®n, »M did not on oath eet forth hoi? end «ben she 
aequlred title, fhe reeord eho^s that (k% the time the aseipwesit v&» 
offered in eTidenee« the attorney for the defend&nt ennouneed to the 
oottrt that he hsd no ohjeetien to its adaiseion. It vae tlierettpoa ad- 
mitted ae en eshitoit. Ae defendant did not aalie the point in the trial 
<K>urt« it Bsj not urge it here. 

^rior to the retrial of the ease, plaintiff endeav^ored, by a 
aotion in thie eourt, to procure the original exhihite reeeived in eiri- 
denee in the first trial. Cefendant, in oounter eugfeetlone, pointed 
out th&t the Judgment for eoete, rendered in thie oaurt, was unpaid, ire 
denied the giotlon far leave to withdraw the es^lbitd. Thereupon plain- 
tiff prooured eertified eopies of the eKhihlte. fheae copies vere re- 
ceived in evidence on the second trial. The second point now uz^ed 1^ 
defendant ia that the court erred in admitting the certified oopiee of 
the exbibite. we tmve exaKined la&e copies and t^e originals and find 
that the copies are exact photostatic (»»pies of the originals, itirther- 
iicre, l^e exhibit@ tend to prove matters about i«hieh there is little, 
if any, dispute. Defendant has not shown it suffered any hans by the 
introduction of t^ie ctrtified copies, rather than the originals. 



«lJ«iaq Bdt tad it'. 'mm mlm xvift, « km twoe •d^ 9n^ 

boM tml»S» ftnoco Mis osm mAxSa \q timm&ija9 k^hammB Aa4»»« ^di i&«tf ao 

irtA A rcl beroa Stmhtif^tafii .OlM,S| to man BtO al AeiMtM •«•« 99^tm»b 

,««asla«T»«o •>«'« ..i^#i(»M«riq U XMqfH aifi^ Mmltkr •tifT9t of «folM«T 
.•tiw tax »iistf««I HI* «*i««JI «MiAsieaa tiff lM«««»«Aai. ,<M«9itRA tJlT 

fxitt iw^^Aa wMt illt&l fvs d$mn am torn hSA Aft4 «iioi#»« oi •ftOdto t^t ^ 
•«w }ii«Mi;^a»« 9419 ftiiXj A^ tM tmit tm^tta knma% «ft ••Ui9 kvtXupaa 

9d9 99 b99tUS9tUU 9aJtfJli9t9% 9Mt 19t t«A«0#t« 9d$ .••IMi^lV* SU ATMIIo 

-6s a«qiMi«i& aA«r fX ,Aola«lflftA ftSTi «^ aQX#o«L<lo (Ml Jkut ad 9«<Cf ifurai 

.i^»n 5f » i^Ji *^ )(«ui ft ^f'lvr^ 

a t<f ,6onoVA«j^ii» tlXtf^oiaX , ,> _ of vol'st 

•>i7d al ^rl^'-^rr 3^Xtflifx» XmiA;sXio 9^ ttuoonr at ttxaoa ildJt tU. a9lt9m 

-■dlMi<:i fi&cit' .*!tM£{f»» 9^ wrtiuf^rxv o^ fTc«X tol floXtoK tit^ imtm9t 

-91 . Sl4taxj9 9di t« ••Xfro» ^91X19^99 6»«u»««iq[ tli# 

ttf ^js tiXo« &A009K MiT ,19119 ba<'099 9di HO MwaiiXT* tU ^vXa« 

"^^ 9«tooo &«XUX?'Xsi» <»jis -g^stttktsM aX s>9'%t0 tms99 9d$ t&tii 9l t(f»imf(%9h 

(vt ftXAaJ^X*t9 ^(i9 ' 20 e<(# b9alaiMK9 9^ati 9M *9itXiiJuti» «£tt 

attXi;;SLCS aX^A^BOfOdll foaxm 9tM 99t*i99 9JlSi ilill 
^919911 Sil 9%9ft9 Oal 91999^:3.9^0%. «9XtfX<tK* 9tti «t1C«i 

9d9 \i aniui vfui 6»^ ^i«ii»Q ••ttf^aXI^ «ia« tx 

•tiaoXaX'so 9d9 fudt laidjrAi ,a«iqo» 6»XlXtf<x«o 9ii9 tc aot99iA9i9tU 



3 

fhe thXrA wlnt advanoefl by i'tetmt^%BM% Is that plaintiff failed 
to iiroTe the all«gatit©ii of jjoaverslon by & prepoaderence of th« «TiS«ae«. 
P«f©nd«at also jasint&liif that th@ court «rre& in aenylag its jastioii for 
a dlreotea Terdlet. &«f«>iit:isiit $l3@n statts tMt th« peasurft of €im»g9B 
in an aetlon for wj?0i3^ful eGnTereioa of personal pro^avty li th« v&luo 
of 0ueh property ftt the time of th« eoav«reioii, aM thst the Ssma^oc 
allotre4 by th« Jury are excess !▼«. Finally, defeMaat arpsts that plain- 
tiff failed to ootablish the noecfisary tle@(^te of agonoy to bln£ tlio 
def #n^ant eorporRtlon* Ag all of those poiats Involve a ooneMoration 
of the evldeaoe, we ^111 coneidei* th^s togetfaer. 

Plaintiff does not ohallenge the et&te»ent that the allega- 
tion of oonvereion must be eatablished by e. prepondereace Qf the evi- 
denee» and inelete that there was ample eviaenoe to show a oonversion» 
ae ohstx^ed. I»laintiff also oonctdes that the measure of dai^&gee is the 
rsilue ©f the property at the tl«e of the eonvej'elon, Ttmt ineiets that 
the evidenee ae to dana^oe supports the verdiot. irlaizitiff ^so asserts 
th&t she eetabliehed the neeeesary elements of af:eney to hityS the de- 
fendsAt. 

In 1926 Andrew traded a far» in Miohlgan for i^e real estate 
SiM. isiprovements looeted at S^l<-a West 2Ma& l*laoe» C^ioage, ooneisting 
of a two story hrie^ building. At that tlae the property w&n @uhj|eot 
to a first mortgage, otrned t^ defendant, in the »vm of i7,CK)0, whloh 
hnOrew agreed to pay. Ke paid about $3,000 on the nortgage. fhe de- 
fendant foreolossd the isortgage* The period of redemption es^ired in 
l>ecember, 19S1, at whioh tlse the defence snt took |30s session of the prop* 
erty. The first floor of tt* pronises was divided into tvo stores, one 
of >f}ileh had h9«a. oooupled as a buteher shop and the othis* as a saloon. 
The second floor vae used as a danoe hall* In Peoember, XB^lt ^t the 
time defendant took possession of the real estate, the persenelty whieh 
is the sitbjeot natter of the aetion, was in the prenlses* Thla property 
consisted of @u till fumltui^ sak^ equipment as le usually eontained in 



ri,^,.~j.a.- .) to •luiMaftsi sri* »w>iw «iK?>. ,w»» nviw J. u».. -*(:•• i»u * ^siAP'soy |l4itoimJtft 4 
atfijrr iud^f tl ipfi»qiraj Isrr *? nolaittraos Ii-* Tiot «oli»« urn a| 

.„-- -i: %^%t%am iltrs nv «0«A»J»lva ^^f* to 

~lY© •ibf to 90ii9<x»5AOqO'£<^ ."« t0 i ': n.'.U 

tnoJ^rt^tnon -^ :<od« oi •oa»£>iYt •XfUA ft«v oi : ii:f?:£si;' 

ci 10 ontmAOfi 9di tntti toAooiiov i do mi 

.'«<* ,a»i(^^,^v«o9 «j1* Ic liMiit 04(# to tirii«99%<i *4{f '*c ^uUv 

'4 .'•tf<ioq<;pra aogoaoft of f« b^p- 
~9 X9a9 -^'xooBoooa wtt bmsu 

4i^ ttiiSS <oo^ C^OftS t» b9f»oQl 8^aoa»0T0%qci JNM 

^A9 oai .S^ii»XJti;«r j^lriU i(to;^o «vt « to 

rloiii '>t«£> x^ fH»nve> ,o^B^c>st 7niit « c^ 

•Ob 9d[T .o^iji^ioa •£(} no 0< .>via Aiii$ . .:.9q ct Aoa'xika «nlMlA 

Hi iboTtqxf i>ol<xoq 9tn ,»-^9^t*t0i ^OXOfOOt tOMbaM't 

»'.,- ■ 9att doiii\( ttf: .i9crm«ooa 

OQO tOo*! od^oi i>'. ftalno'xq o^ •I'f^t 

. io<:Xia« o s« "stil^o otfif Aao qoi^ /cf ^ ■« bojtqwooo 40«<i' owl o 

0^;^ 1^^, \'uoXt &aooo« mAt 

ii&iii ■ .-.oosittCMi ji.Q'iti^ jrits.^«loA o«t|. 



4 

saloons, buteb.^ shops sad bailee hails. There le evid^nee whi^ teMe 
to Khow tfegt in th© moatli of Utesaber, 1031, the def efi<^sat, by its eer- 
▼aate, put & loeK on tfet doore of the builfUng, aM that because af s«6h 
«etlon, AMr«»r irr^g unsble to rasraove th« fixtures, feetlmoay was iatro- 
dtte«d th&t in the yeare 1S32, 19SS asS XSS& tfe« def eafiaut l«»fita. th« 
pre»l8«0 &iid ^sttelii to vsrioue partiet* "ni® proof &XtN» eriiovg th&t f&jp* 
iou8 <i«Bftnde aM ®tt«s^te w«re !e»i&« by Andx»@ir to pro@ur« the cti&tt#l6. 
7li«re w^s eompeteat evid«noe iii the record i^liieh varrsnted tli# Jitry In 
fiiuUn^ that Aaartw h&di & rlglit to tlie possession of the ohattels; tMt 
they vere wijongfuliy eoaverted lay the positive and tortious oonduet of 
defendant; tliat des&ftnd was aade for the return of the eh&tteXs, vhieh 
vas not eoffiplled trlth. Pl£lntlft proved h-^w ease subetantielly &c laid 
In her seoond steaded etstesent of elala. we have also considered the 
point, itrged by defendant, that plaintiff failed to eetehXleh that the 
persons vith i^mk Andrev dealt in the traneaetlon, Imd a right to aot as 
Sjl^eBta for the defea<1pijt. The record shave that during the trial, counsel 
for the respeetlve parties stipuuLated that oertain persons during oertaia 
periods were of fleers of the defendant «>rpor^tlon« we are eonvlaeed 
that this etipulation and the evidence in the ease established the ageftegr 
of the various persons mentioned in the testiniony. i^ueh testlisony v&«, 
therefore, admissible for the purpose of binding the defendant. 

Finally, we are called upon to detexnaine idiether the daoafelt 
are exoesslve. In the previous trial, on substantially the suae testi- 
mony, the jury awarded idOO. ^e have oarefully oonsidered all of the tea* 
timony snd are of the opinion that the dimagesi are exeeseive, $m& that 
the judgnent should not exceed 11,500. Therefore, if within 10 days from 
the fill^ of this opinion plaintiff will file in this court a remittitur 
of : 1,000, the Judg«ent apiinet defemTaat will be affirmed for 11,600; 
otherwise, it will be reversed and the esuse remanded to the Municipal 

Court of CShlca^ for a new trial, 

^ JUD©a.uK? ivFrX^Ji;.!) Pun U,500 UPOK 

mBKL, J, and i'iS^lTTlVUa 0^ la, 000; uVH.^n^:iaS 

i)£8l3 !■:. tSlILLX^m, i?.J., ao»CUR. JUDaMEIH' nmMiQZH Aim Qiim& K^WmUEB. 



MiMmt ihlcm 9^am.*fiv9 U rstif? ,iiIlAti «»tt«ft bt ; ,aMoXM 

-imv iti ^ .%•* 9t ,fMrmo»Q Ic ftsTAon •/It lU tmOt v»ite pt 

.&X«««««'iD •^i^ »tf^: i«t»«ii6nA xfi •ham ••saw atqpwirt* Aca tAntua^b ttfttl 

Hi t^Ktft •^^ tt*ta&%-iMi i^ld» ik*i««»n til? nl ••fi»Mr» fnetsqaov taw •nttifT 

)• tatfteaa atfoi#'xoif btv^ •ri^lioq ad^ f^ i^t^tmoa tXIut^ancKw •«x«v toi^ 

;-{s»iirv ,;.ii'j .?.*'?. -la adt lo invtai •!& to"! «♦" • Maaaft Ja^" "■•♦* 

bl^l 3SA xXX'^'i^oatatf'ira aaaa t^il ftavavq 'l)i;jal.el'i .i<9iv &alxq£ioo ;7q^i saw 

arf^ j^'SEkfilaaoa oaX« araxf aw .aIaIo to taa«t;l«ta £>aAii»na Aaeiaa *caif ml 

futs SaOS ifBiI<f«taa oi &aXlal tli^nialq ^jsid^ ,faaba«la6 ttf l^]|«ar it&la^ 

. . «^. .7 ^if^i a i^Aii ,iioitaaa£Ln# axt? Ai tXa*i> wa<tfi«A mtubt Attn anoaiMQ 

A;i-»ju^u^ ,^'.1*1} %dt aaltttft taify a^fOfrfa Maa*n ad? .taafraalafr ajfif rrot atfnasA 

£tXB9^a» SO^iujI^ aiiaa«ta4 ttla^'vaa tail^ &a#aXuqi#a aalttaq 1gflt1M^^%w% •Ai ntli 

^•aaivAeo ••xa aw •jaol^tr^oorvoa ira«&aata5 ^ii to ataaitta a^Mnr aBoliaq 

^aa9« aiftf ftai^alX^A7a« aaisa •if^r ni 99mhtn •At bus aot taXmilif a aliit tsAi 

,«aw V>c^i^«*<^ <t®<'^ »\a^i>U*9i •dt tU hnaoltmm aiioa*Baq aKoiiar axft \e 

,fti»^M\9h tAS sflUboi^r la aaasruNi adt *xa<l aXeTlaaiisba ,«TA^«T«<f« 

aa^anaft atft toili^axCv 9titmi9t9St tit ao^f AaXXsa anui av «tXXiBAtt 

-Xtaa^ aiBtta •jtf:^ %£lMXfimtM4ut ao «XaX^t auoXva'Sq arf^ nX ••▼laaaaxa •%» 

-••t adt to XXs SnfhttMQO xlXis)X9nM9 •rzA aV .OOtS ft«Mawa ru>t •d^ ^t^om 

t«4t l^ft^^ «9TXac»!9xa aiea aasasaft a;dtsr tadi aalatqti •At to a*ia baik yfa^tUi 

onnt •\»b OX oiiftflw 11 ,a'M»t«<x«df •OOd tXl fiaaaxa foe AXtfoila tfoaogM^ •'^ 

tutmin^f^ a twoa aXift ni aXXt XXlv ItltalaXq neXoX^a aXif^ fa saXXit ad^ 

tOOi«X^ tat AaatXtta atf XXXv taaftoataJ^ taoXasa tiraaa^ivt ad? «000tXl to 

£.«!Tl-!f'^«" '^t* ft? f!*lta»!H»n aajtf%« arf* ftfia &aataT»t arf IXtir *t' ««alwt»d3-o 

.V ,..f. .V .XaXtf wan m «iat •>:|i*i»,t(fD to tf-swos 



41147 

HOMSrj B, mourn, I >v, s^m^i m 

Z^ ' \ i 

fippeilfie. 




AppepiRRt. ) o u i) i«A« 4 y O 

m, JUSTICE BimKE DfLITffflB THE OPIIIOS OF THI SmJHt, 
Defendaat Is eng ged in tlie bu^lneea of sisnuf550turiiig aad 
selilag typevyiters. on July 1, 1934, plaintiff ^n© hir«£l by defend?s.Bt 
aa a typ«*rlt#r aaleamaa under a written ngreeawnt. The territory 
in ttrhieh he ir^a p«raltted[ tc soliolt business iriS knovn ^s the Idop 
dlatrlot ©f Ohio??go, In the f^ll of th-'t yenr he ^nn truiwftrred to 
the west sile seotion of Chioago, He was then shifted to the north- 
vest side of 0hlOngo» and then to the north side of Clhle^go. In 
October* 1336, he was given % new eontrr^ot, whioh r?erttitted him to 
solioit business in t'n» sresi ^^est of the river between t^ashington 9nd 
26th streets, whioh the parties call the west side territory. The 
eoatr^ot provided for the payment of ". s^ilary of f35,00 « week and 
a oeouaisslon of 10^, on typewriters sold, ''s'^id oommisision to be 
oredlted »»nd pstd In sooordj^noe with th« niles of the eofflp«jay. The 
ett0loye«F hereby ^eknowledges th^^t he has seen and rei%d the rules of 
the Coapni^ now ia effect*** The rules Tironmlg^ted for the fuldbsaee 
of «al«sw8n r^sd.. In part, «« followsj "Orders. 1, weguls^r foria 
©f order • * * to tje used by snlesoen and signed by oustoawr In every 
lnst«inoe* 5. Ail sf*iee orders nust be r?pproved by the ssanager. 6, 
^en % conoern of good finnnoinl standing issues its w«n pureh&se 
order forms, this purchnae order will be suffloient, b\it 8«.lesWMl 
should obt*iin the rpgular signed order in dupliotte to oonflras ?my 
purohs^se order when oustoaer does not hsir« f/yovsr erf^dit r«tlng» 
7. All original orders aust be BiK»*4 in ink or ixKSeiible penoll. 
Contracts. 3. Contraets providing t^r futtrre d«;liver*«« sr® not 
oonsidered as orders, and will nsC be pl*««4 \\« the er«4lt of 3%le8m«n 






\ 



ee^.A.isog ; 



. 'T? Tlt}OVQ(Xl* «KT 



tSURli 



«rc«I Vifs^ 9«T oiTQAir »ji« s««ni«urf fiolioc 0# b9|-^j|ttY^ '{ 6oltH ttl 

MT •# ttnlv»tSKiiLOt> M»»* «fcXdS •T«#i'«W0<lt^ no ^i^l "M 0Oi»«iKi»OO « 

•i(T .^KuN^awo •di !:• ai«X»T 9iti^ Hit* aoa?b«on»« ni Aliiq Imm f)9fii)fti;o 

lo ««itrr fkif^ b^*Y tan a«i»« irAri #if »«>d# m^ifimim^a^m ftBXibd MtoXfMs 

«aa*Jblu9 »d» tist t>*i •^T^lan^ta mnlut m/Vt *.#lMi1t9 at ««« vt^t'-lAoS *d# 

»it«t T^Xos*?? .X .•t»MO» t9«9XX«^ »« %t%Mq Hi ,&«»« MMsaXi^s lo 

Y^«v«» nl T<Mi»#«u9 Td *»«8X« *«« flai6»9X«i« t* *••» sd •# • " * r-^bnc t« 

•e .Tv^^jiyM^ «dl Ttd tdToiEcretA ftd ^saffi etvM^ ••1^9 XXA ... . >ofli»^«al 

9«ifcddTii« •«-<# stX •^xieal s0ll»cr«^« Xnieojuxit Jtoos )<? jmvemod « ii»jf» 

amm^lf-9 t«id ,ttf.^i«mMi wf Iliw x»tt& •wadovm cXdt ^satTeY t9^7o 

^^r mi^ae* et •^ooiiqub al vnfe^o l»««sXe lAXiQi^ od# iii«td9 bltmti^ 

•^i-ts7 ^il^'4']3• «iiM«<9 WAft S0a soob iMretaji/s JKtttfir t*ti«o ftancforjr 



oa th« book* of th« Ooapa^, th® ordtint folliwr «s »«ipflir»t« pmrta ©f 
the tranBftOtlaii 'gfhlsh mre p«lae«d t© tfe# dr«dit ©f the sitlesaaB. But 
la o«.8© the sfelesmsn should leave our eapl«y, or !»co«pt a trmasfer to 
maothex fer?,nch, he will hwve no further intereist la mny o©atract, mad 
no oojsmission will be p«y!%ele ea or4»Ts pl»«ed ^ the otisteai«r %Bd 
aeoepted by us ^fter he has seTrered his Q&nn®©ttoa» even thsugh said 
9ontr;^et awy hftv« been origitiated or ©losed by Ma." StaJftlag vitln 
OotQber, 1336« plaintiff bfgnn oaliing on all preapeetlv© eustoaiirs 
in hi9 territory. In the ©ourse of hla duti«9, he exiled &% Mr. Oftoil B.t 
thoaa«, mho ?raa th« lasgrer in the purehsaing d«p?»rt«eBt of $«»** Re«bucl: 
& Ooap&]qr> He aueee«d«d in selling @Q typ«wrlt«r9 to Sears Ho«1»uolc J^ 
Oo«pax^ ia February, 1937 « and ;3S additional typewriters to the sraac 
eorpor tioa in Maroh or ''^^prila 1937. He vf^a paid n ootaalssioa && 
these 7S typewriters nt the rate of 10|if on the ®«kie price. H«r sgsin 
oiilled ea ^« Thorns v^bout the middle of June, 1337, ^nd endeavored 
to sell IDO oere typewriter*. Plaintiff left on hlg ▼aO'>tion on 
June 18, 1B37, aad returned on July 6« 1337. ^t ttmt tiae Jaeob i^. 
Thraeher, eho w^e then Shioago aisles a&nager, infor»«-d plaintiff th^t 
be was going to reduce hia to the status of n junior sale9ffl.sn,in which 
oap&oity he ««N3uld be paid a ei^lary mnd no eooffiiseion. Plaintiff 
declined to ocntinue as » $«!»•««& uadAr the proposed eh^snge. He 
salntRined th t he w?>« entitled to n eoaaaission of 10> on the sale 
of »& additional 100 typev^riters to Senrs Hoebuok & Oompmny and on 
the e%le of typewriters to three other parties. He filed a stnteajent 
of oinia in the Muniolp«l Oourt of OhiOi^go on J>nu«4ry 9, 1339, «^nd 
therein olaimed the sua of f670,S0 on the b«si9 of 100 typewriters 
vhioh ho averred he was Inttrument^^l in ??elling to Cears ^oebuok & 
aoopaay at a price of ie,70S.OO* He also clsii^|sd a eesniission of 
#lia.50 on the basis of 10 typewriters, vhioh he alleged he sold to 
the Dwaver MMnufaeturing Company, plus I11.3S as a »9l«noe due hia 
for hevlng sold tiro typewriters to the Ovitloolt lavelope Qomptiny, Ksnd 
a balanee of .I&.6f75 on the bssls of 1 typevrit'T, which he averred he 
sold to aeorge r. aelternffln, or a tots! sua of ^799,6t>5. An affidavit 



■ I 

o mt^MXi •tnMtf M ««iio) ira»bto til .ii^A^iaioO •at lo ti^od •At no 

e# t*l«iii^T^ a t4[»a9« to «>(oIq«» tu« •vetiX tiuotit aAOfitiB mdt ••»e oi 

btu ^t^fttaet^ ^t ni t»*rstal xttattul ofi atjuI XXiv *£( ^AttasTtif x^dtoas 

bc« <c»«»teu« 9t<t x<i k99iiSxi 9ttX0 ao •Idnxaq mT iXiw iioittftlMMMt «« 

'Xfs U:gm<t0t a(tT# ,tiol^»«ffttoo Kid ibtt»T*« ajut •c 7»^a au xif tftn—9» 

Atim 'iflltxtiti "^mtd ^tf £)»8(»I» to b«tjuiXslY« otM rrjui xmm t9«rta»9 

viwotnu^ •Ti#o»q«<rrq lli« fl« ^111*9 a«)i«tf nilxtioXfi «M<»i ^YMfatftO 

t JU««0 .Tii flo b«XX«e Vii ,»»i#tfl^ tlK t9 •«T:/o« •At al ,XJ9tl7X9t tilii Hi 

3roc^»«H 8i«»« t« #oiMi#«#>q»t jtnXtKidnuiq •!{# ai T«ipEid «4^ unr oihv ,«iwiO£lT 

A it«if(r«o^ o-sjife?. e# «i:<»^itw<KX^ Od ^XIX«« ai A»ibmMii«Ml aM .^ERflqaQO ft 

<mJi» •dt e^ •T9>i'rwac(f» X<9iioXri^Jbit fiS tit/t «7S6i «\(«iiirtcre^ /oi xI<ia<1^*'B 

aX«iS« aJI ••olTq aXiiH 9dt «• ilOX lo a^T -% BAt it^ si*ti,m9^\i SV «atift 

t)aT«Tff»Aao fine •'PSei «wurL Ic •/''=* ^" "t *ir«e<u ii«««4<t .^ ao fraXJUo 

00 ooi^t'O^T vXtf AO rittX ^)^>a* ^ .aT«;ri««tqiE^ t7«« COX Xi9« d# 

.S tfoeel Mif tJ^t #^ .tecx »0 t<^tfl ao Mtfrxut*? tfi' ,TSeX «8X sni/^ 

ii# ni^aijiXxi twiTtalflX ,T»s«fl«B •«Xm o»^»ldO aoift t-^T odv «tttif««icifT 

■JltX^wii.. , .i««i«Boo Off "Xaq »tf bXaoir oif ^;rio«9Ji9 

OH .vfiAJPtio Jb«ioo(%oTq o<i» irofiai^ aiUB09Xo$ « e« nuni^aoo oST iboaXXooi) 

0X«« •At ao 4(0X ^o ffolii92K?;i}7i 9 i^t bmltita* Bf-f od t di b^ainSalKm 

ae IMIP \?Tf-^SHjC *. :!xnift9<i •$ •to/lTwO^jxt 001 ImaoltJthb*^ nf. lo 

«^rt»»0.tfl? .8»i#i^ f9iC#o ooitKf O* B-ift^Xitwoqt* ': '^AS 

tMM »e*: i ,' t«iMfli*- ao ogpoJjJl' "So t«uoO XfiqioXoi/M •di ni mittlo to 

»i»*lTw9ct* ^^'^ ^* i»i«*^ «M* «o 08,0T8'- to »w« 9tl? IjobXjrXo alBindt 

A j{a»tfoo i3*aa«iitt«ai o«w •d l>»«»ra od doirio 

to aolRe/ ?•■- • - t*&ir'..- .00. SOT, 34 to ooXtc y,a.«q«oO 

0# bXoe ori fcoi^oiu 8i««d od* «o Ofi.EXX* 

jt , ,xfi»qmo^ j^tTAjtosttMsxa r»rtrsQ tdi 

Jbflft tXaarmo^ •qoXf tXiwoqv ^oe 8«iir«ri Tot 

.AnfrvoiZoit .1 ogMrooo or JbXoa 



3 

Of serits tiled by tbe defendant deiii»d %h^?t the plaintiff «»« •ifitHI«4t 
t© r«06veT« h trial before tfe« eowjft iWid ft J^ery yesuitedi in n 
▼ftrdiet against the defeodlant fear |1'24,13, Tfee fi8f«a4®at mrfi^ for a 
JudgEieBt Bot«dtbataiidiag tlie verdiot as to ff'^eli e«psr^t« ifeeai, siM in 
the «ilt«rB5^tiTe for t. noir trial. Th# oourt sustained the action sa 
to the s^le t© the Ot^vbt Msaofaeturing Ooapsiiy, Fl«liitiff theteupoa 
reaitted the mxm of ,t97,0i, aad judgment w»9 ©mt^red on the b^lano* 
©f th« verdict aawsvating to ff#37«D8, this appsjii followed. 

At this tlFi^ the:re i^re three items In dispute on ei^eh of 
«hieh plaintiff ol^iaa thc^t he ia entitled to *>. oo^aiesion of 10^ 
of the anle price. It is unneoeaeary to ooasider the olaia for 
ooaaiasioB on the 14 tyy^'pritere «old to the Cruver Mranttf*!!^oturing 
Ooapsny in the latter part of iSoveaber, 1936, ho plaintiff remitted 
the sua of |97,05, representing the coasBSiasion on thia tranisactloa, 
and no oroes errora nre assigned, beoeuse ©f the section of the court 
in directing s verdiot si^inat plaintiff «« to that item. The three 
Iteas now in dispute on n^ioh plaintiff clalma he ie entitled to a 
eossaission '*re (1) the a typewriters sold to Outlooit envelope Oo»p*ny 
In the latter part of February, ISS? j (3) 1 typewrit^^r sold to 
0eorg® F. MoKiernan in the e«rly pnrt of iaroh, 1937, and (3) 100 
typewriters sold to f-ears ^oebuolc # Oompsny on July 6, 1937, It is 
oonoeded th«t plaintiff sold the typewriters to the Outioofe snvelop© 
Oo»i>aay and aeorge #. MoKiernAia. these type-rriters s^ere sold on a 
barter b'vsis. Osfendant amintRliw thi*t at the tiaie these s^aes were 
being eonsidered, plnintlff submitted the barter propositions to its 
Ohieago a^les manager, who approved the gissles on a barter bssis on 
the oondltion thst plsintiff would %gree to s ooamission of only Sj^ 
instead of the usual lOf, snd thst plaintiff agreed to the redueed 
ooaaisslon. In the trisil plaintiff denied that there wis ai^ »gree«ent 
whereby he agreed to waive the i{>i oonuBisalon, He was i?aid on a 
bftsis of H Qoaaission. fhe ^ury allowed him «n additionul 6i 



J 



t 

«« nc?l#offi nttt hmmifitnu9 ttubf^ fttf? .lAjtv^ irta « tat »Tl^f^ff7»tXji eifl 
ii«<7;f»«»il# "mtMit^X^ .Xn^anoO ^i7i/f6nti«i^ rr«ti/tt) ^Ai o# ftXjea Mt oi 

tot ttl^Xo »tit itDiMoo ot ^0M««ftaiio •! #X .AelYc; liXna »j1# t« 

T^ciixut^p^attgw tmvmV fid* 9i bXos ««»tfitv*';;x' ^i^ *<(^ flo aoie#ii!>aH»o 

h0f$i»t tJiinlniq Bn «$e£X ,t#<fft«vot to #TiMr t»##i*X M^ Hi xojf^^aoC 

#itvoo »ift to nol^oA »dt to osveootf «J^oiiBX»aa oti; storto fteoto on Immi 

»•!«(# Oif? .MSti; ^£|K# o^ «« ttltalJiXq 4'utio^in #«iMov « Sfii'<^^Vi£> Ai 

jt ot l}«i^itae tit od cairXo tti;hsiBXq {foiiCv ao ottrqeXb oX woa a«»#i 

X^0t?»oO 9q9i9Vtt% IpolttiO 9$ fiXoe «Y»#X7irO(rc^ S aiit (X) onc^ aoXanXcuoo 

«# ftXoa tatiTvogx* iC (S) J tew ,t*Aiil;cfoI to ^«7 f^it^X »rf# ai 

OOX (^) 6o« ,f8§X »ifo»fl«5 to ihtatj Yi^««* •rf* «X aefltoiHoi* ."H o^toaO 

aX H .T^CX «8 x-^J^^ fl« tn«<qp»e 4 tfOtfifooB a'XiROC o# 'bXet rx»#itv«qx^ 

«<^oX9irfrt soeX#«0 9At ot tfntktumiXS ftd* *Xo^ tJt^rslMXvi ts^dt fcoJDaooosi 

8* a* fcXoa »X9^ arr^sjTiTiirOQx* •«*tft ♦«fi«ti»i , »8*«»^ *«* YO^ff-'"''-' 

e#X ot i»«c4*leoqoiq TatSTtffd' orft fc«tftf^i»cfae ttX#«ii«Xa ♦bstsij&lanoo gfllotf 

aro eXai^tf v^^f^^f cr ao eaXre 9if!t bturinqtitf oiftr ^tasi^jAaaB aoX^n os^oidO 

^ tXso to noXcainucoo « «# oti^ilt bXjMHf ttltai^Xq #«9i(;r AoX^iluioo •lf]^ 

feMtufeov «fi't 9# lM»at^i» ttl^ttXj^Xq #^jc!^ hts^ ^i.Qt lutmu »«'# to b»»$»at 

*si9am%r'gfi yifXM um Ot«ff» tpdf h»la«f> ftil^aX^Xq l^ixi 9>Ai al .AoXaeiestsoo 

« fto r>X»o »:!?« »S .ftoia^istfRoO ktH *d9 Hvim o«^ £>»«t8ta »ri '^cJsrte^iw 

^e X#fioX*Xt>Jfcj» ii«» aXfl ^»wolX>- t«»i »rf^ ,0oie«X««a«3» ^9 to 8i«»<f 



1 

4 
coamisaioti, whloh amounted to IS* ©3 on the amle of 1 typ«?^lt#r to 
aeerg« r. MoKl«rnan, «nd 111,9.5 on the 3 typewriters sold to t,h# 
Outloofe ,g.nvei«]p« 0©«pmny, or ft totssl of I16,i8, Clearly, the rlgfet t© 
the ooa^sisaioB oa th^ae t«so it«®a preseateiS ^ qu««tioii ^g to the 
credibility of th© witnesses, whloh th« jury reaolvtd in fn-por of 
plaintiff, and w« i^uid not b« jwatlfled in disturbing the ▼erdiot in 
that r#8pect» 

the elil«f oontroversy centers *«b©ut the ssile of th« 100 
typewritert to >5eftT8 Roelniok & Company os July 6, 1337, The net sale 
orlo® v.«i8 i|©,l>MI«00, whiea, if plaintiff's position is oorreat, would 
entitle hla to a ooaais^tlon of |610,30 on this transaction, 3ef«ndftnt 
;srgue« th' t tbe court errtfd in failing t© direct s verdict in its 
favor and in fiftlllng to «nt«r » ^dgmsnt non abistante vgiMisla. 
Plslntlff Insists th'it the record presents '^ purely f^^ctuai situr^tion 
which h«8 been decided by the Jury. In passing on a aiotion for s 
judgment non obstj^-nt e veredicto ob to direct n verdict ^e %Te not 
permitted to v?elgh the evidence, if there i? in the record nxy evidence 
fro« i»hieh, the jury oov0.d, without sctln^? xinressoruibiy In the eye 
of the i«!W, find thf^t the amterlsl averaM^nts of the statement of el^ini 
hjsve been proved, ^ verdict amy not be dlrseted, nor should the court 
enter » judgment jshm. obstante veredicto . It is our duty to view the 
testimony in the aiost favornble light from the plaintiff's standpoint. 
Having these rules in asindl, we turn to a oonslder^ntlon of the evlctenoe. 
?lalntlff testified th«»t h« called on Mr, Tho«»e, the buyer for ^ears 
l^oebuGk 6 Oo»K»iny, «bout the middle of June, 1937, imd solicited 
another order of 100 typewriters j th?it ThoBKis suld "I would get sn 
order for 100 aaohlnes to m delivered in July, not before July. As 
to why be could not give as » written order before July 1st, he aald 
there was ftaother appro prl«it Ion or sowethlng, they couldn't buy sny 
■ore - th«^ couldn't tsite acceptance or aiqr asore anchines until that 
■onth. I don't know the reason for it bat 1 h)?»d to accept his word 



c 

9t t«^iTi»«crtf I 1« •im •iff JMi^dW •* b9$nu<»tM if«liltt «Rol«aia«»o 

•iff »^ M»» «T0^i^Hr»7Tt f •4# «e dJ^«U^ t«« «n«in:»i:i9M .?! *]iT««l> 

oi tj^lT »fff ,tX9>*9X0 «se.ar& lo l^^ei a m «ipMq«»& miolBraSi jtooXlJuO 

'd^f o# Aj' tUitfB»tm * hm$a999rvt 9n»4t ami •••jfl a« aoi««la;Aeo ah^t 

al t9tin»r #jf# ^idtti^gpift si 6«ll^l^«»( 94 turn hluom tm Im^ ^"mtalmlq 

• fomie'ir it'iii 

9i#e f%a ntft ,ft9l «• t'ot no tM^a*^ « jtAaftfftofl •»•» •» e^stltw^qx^ 

tstgban'fm ,mlfHBnff%* ttldt a« Ot^ACil t« aoi«»itMo» • ot mitt •ltitm9 

8r#| tti 9^*?il^99V « t»0<vJrt:^ •# {liaiiiAt Jti b»Xt9 iti/09 ^t $i^At s*iq|«« 

,iii2lL2XS£ •*»J»t»«to nog #nti%fnrt ff T%*a» 9$ jgfLlUMi al btuf rmtfk 

•X* We't fit t'tfi^«"*^^E<Bf lM>i'9A tOpAttf ^htU99 T*vt 9^^ «dt>ldF ••fl 

•lj(X» ^0 taftffi»^r't« Mf^ t« t^AMntMr^ i8it«»#«i Mf« /4i{# hal\ tWsX ed# lo 
i7eo(» ftd^ bi0oii« <«M ,^»t•o%it!^ Mf #«■ x<Ki troii>««T « «j»«Y«»t<{ ii9»cr (rrail 

.90A»M79 «(f^ )o aei^«v«M«iWe » «r muft «« «t»ln al ^9lu% w^nut saiTisS 
»-tr=»r tot T^totf »tf* »«iww>iit .tM «o A«xx*v» •!( *fi<i^ i>»iti»)ie* ni#fli»ri 

All rti^ fcXtW'i^ X" Wj^i" »«w«rff ttil* |««^*ii;!inwjX* -''X to t»/:ito tod#o«« 
«'^ .uftrX, »it«'^«d fm ,x^wt fll feoisirlXofc •«[ e# «icid08» COX ««^ t»fcT« 

XBR ts^ f«nbX«ro» t»«** n^i&tmen %o fl»l#»lii«io«iil* -stedsroa^ •** •%9di 



3 

for it. 1 toid hi* I wn,» golBg @n tssr ■y^.eation ^ftad I would a«« hi* 
after J ob«» bsek froa ay Tseatlon,** f^itacas furth«r testified thst 
the supervlsox' in tb« district ri9sign@d to hia w<is Mr. M^^reld iiuhii^ 
wi» vaa kls lmffiedl>kte superior; tb t Mr, thr^nh^r ws^^s the Sbleage 
3%le8 ««nRgeri th?it Ji« (plnlntiff) sailed oa Tbr<sali«sr on June 17, 1937} 
tli'^t h« teld Tkra»ii«r th?*t iie hsi ^n order for 100 anehlnea froai 
Se^rt Ho«batfk ^ Ooarpni^; thnt he askAd thrnsher for iMsrttlssioa to 
go an iii« v%©ati©ii ©oaa»noing ©n Fridifey, Jwat 18, 1^7, Instead of 
atturdayj that thri^sher answered, ^fhm% is flae, ataej*' that defendant 
paid him |7S.OO, beiJi^ one week's s«i*ry due June Id, 1937, and two 
iis«elC8 In sdiraaoe cover ing the vnoatioa period up to and Inolviding 
July 3, 1957; thvt Independenoe '3ay fell on a Sunday nad w«>a eeiebr«)ted 
on the following d«y, and th»t, therefore, he did not eoae biek to 
work until tiieads^y, July d, 1937; th^t when he returned to work 
Thr«.aher told him he -^^e going to ohftnge hie oontract «nd put him to 
tro^k «« a junior timlesMua on <« etrsifht ealary b«!sie without oomalesion; 
th^t he (plaintiff} informed 7hr»sher th^t he had ^ oofoaission ooming 
for 100 m^ohinea whioh he hwd aoid to Se^^^ra Hoehuck * Coapisr^, find 
th«tt he, the witness, refused to accept the ohange in hia terms of 
employment; »nd thr^t fhr^sher then onused to be delivered to him «> 
oheok for #3S.OO, leas a deduction of 35 denta for soeisl security t^, 
iltneea further testified thf^t on the same morning, he ele^red out 
hia desk and left. He atnted that he arrived at defendant's office 
on the morning of July 6, 1937, at 9 o'clook; that Thrsaher v^a 
"awfully buay" and «it w«a rather late irhen I got to tplk to him,* 
Cmoll M. theaae testified th^^t in June nnd July, 1337, he wia the 
buyer for Seitra Roebuok k Ooapsny, »nd that the order for the 100 
typewritera ^s handed to the saleaman, Mr, Thr**8her testified for 
defendant th?«t %t his, («iti»i98*«) reoueat, plaintiff oim» to hia 
of floe; that he anw plaintiff »ibout June 18, 1937; th«*t plwintlff ms 
going oa hia vsoatlon; th«t he Informed plaintiff that he w^s asking 
a Change and th«t he wished plaintiff to work ^a a junior sr^lesmnn on 



c 

i 

mlti »t« bliipw I bae noitauAr ^ jk> i^^Um m^ I aid i>J^ I *tl ««) 

ta6$ k9^XJlt%9i sositTU/t '»uP'Bttt *'.itoJt»A«i«v y/§ mini iL^mi ttaeo. I mmttiM 

^aidiOL iii«7«M »xM ft^v «i«i o# 6Aii%lfi»A iolxtMlb 944 ai %9Mirx9qim rnut 

tramiiS^ 9ai u»fi xmlMisjAt .xm t at ^%mJtfmnm m$ntb»»mJt aijtf •«« aiv 

«oxl 9«sl£E&^ft OCX x6t x»tyte a» tfuji •jf t^i <x«utea«i(T AIo^ im( t«i(f 

oi aoltalm'spq vol vAifajiTilT l^*jfaa •a itfdt ;^|ftjiq«oO 4 Iwitfaoi^ •<»•« 

lo JbA/^iTaitti ^Tfi^i «dX mmvU ^XBbtfH a« yg •«■■■■§ nttitMonr 9ta Jin •( 

tn«tit«t$l> #54^ «iOe« .tan «i ^aA* «ft«T*«tJM %»Mwngt imdt |^pi^«ay#M 

«pt M« «7£iX «&X «aifV 9^ T«*Xiia •*J(»*^ ««• saXatf ftOQ^^tl aijl kXm 

9t in^^S «ttoe ^oa bXt tiiC «rTo% •«•<(# «#i^tf^ Imr ^xo^ 'S<i«oXlo% »ift «t 

iCtt}^ o« &taictft»x ti a»*H iaUt {VCfii «d xitA ^^rhfgi liiMu MUm 

M mtfi im i>na tox^tao^ •Jtc( ninBLtlo oi ^nioa •"^^ *^ "^^ ^^ fdmrnrnMl 

Sninoo not«mlKmc9 a bgi *iL t»Ai «*i(«jrtff'i bmmftmi {"itltoAnS^) •< «.Rxi« 

to Bffi?))^ aid ai w:%aAAp »4j^ tqaeoit 9^ &9cuift«T «a«Mf#iv ftiU ••xl #Mf# 
» miA oi bt^9trtJi»J> od o4 l»««tf«o nM^ VMiMncift «/^i(# imm linrntX^Um^ 

ftm h»t;i»l9 9A ^:QfiXa^m «•*»» »4* i»> t*il* ^Xli^9*# mWtut »«•»«* 

esw TwlfcPiKl *jtK» ;i©«X9»« i #J» ,TS%X ,8 tXlil. l© 5i»4intt»« wir «o 

"•aid o# iXis* •* #«» X «•*>» ♦#«X ««f*9« ««v n* tee "iim^ tii*/tw<»" 

•4t »«ir 9d «Ysei «yX«>V Jbei>< •»&{. fiX $f*dt f>*itii9»$ ftfUioifS •« XA«M» 

OCX M^ 10% %ex>%9 »ict #«itf« !«« «iiu9mO a Hinai99R «<••& sot ««ii!(vtr 

tot k^niHU !t#ite«i:<T .tM .a«M«Iiiii od* 94 HtBfiA ij** •»«#l«»»#r;r 

•Iff At t«ffo tti^aXAX^ «#c*irf*% (••B«»a#i») «»l^ *« **ii# #oi»A«»»»ft 

e^w nX#aijRXq t.^At |TK«X ♦SX »ii€fi» *i*w^« llitaXsXq w#tt »ri *«iff ;»oin* * 

yslMfH •«»« •* t«U* IIX^oXjpXq i5«Bt«liii 9A $*M ifiditsoev aid <f« sal«t 

flo fiinnftXM voliwt • •« *««• o* ^IXtuXsIq i>»i<«X« •a *«<<* *«« •»«*il» « 



It atralght salary with ao ooasuaission} t.hst h« vmnt cfe«>nglng th® 
position of 'pl^ilBtiff 'teae**.!!!*® plaintiff was &®t ap^king enough t«*le»t 
%h>>t h« next a«w piaiatiff ©n «J«ly @, liS7, n% whloh tlae plaintiff 
sidelined to aoe«pt ttee position of punier salesafta. Me fwrtfeer 
te0tifi«d th^t pluintlff tlt«a iresigaAd, olesitM out his desk ntuid 
l*ft the pr«isi8e»« 

It th« tlBrt plaiatiff ®»lied or ^r. thoa*i« of 9«i*t« Hoeltmek 
(I OoMpaxjy, the Iwttey did not place any order, thomas informed 
plaintiff that h« oouid not give hia a written order isefor* July lat, 
SM thei?e w«« 11^ appropriation for svioh purch^®*®. The 'j^ritten 
ins t motions to the smleamen, whioh rer© binding on plaintiff, st-^te 
tHat ooBtr«90t8 for future deiiTeriea ar« not eonsidertd ».9 orders and 
"^will nsot be plaoed to the oredit of the aalf^sai^n on this bor^ics of the 
ooapfflay.** Theae inetruotione further specify th-st n© eoamiesion iriil 
be 5>ayAble on ordere placed by tb® ousto»er "sad soeepted after the 
ealesfflaa b«a eevered hia oonneotion with the oomptssy. The evldenee 
shows th^t Sei«r« Eo«huek & Ooaaany did olipoe »n order with the 
defendant for l(X) tyi^writers on July 8, 1357, The instruotioM to 
jB^leemen oonteatplMtee that orders ah?^ll b<? *i.ic«n on forms furnished 
by defendsuftt and th.nt all salPs orders miet be flPT>rov«fd h/ the 
omaftger, and Also proTides th: >t when a oonnern of good fini^tnelal 
stnsnding iseaee its own purohsse order forms, suoh pureh^ae order 
will he suffloient. The reoord showe th»t :)«9T« ?^ehuok S. Qompnny 
delivered a written order to defendflnt on July 6, li!??. There rta 
not then, ssnd is not no«, any (jtiiestion as to th* good financi*3l stand- 
log of Clears Roehuek & Oompany, fhere ?p' s not then, nor ie there now, 
amy Question r» to the approval ©f the siale hy the '*ii»a»g«r'* of 
defendant. It is ohwious thnt defendant ir?«8 anxious at all tiaee to 
, sell Ita product to e*«a,r8 Roetouok & Ooapany, The mle of the 100 
typewriters, aooording to the tesatlfflony of plaintiff, ^n,B aollcited 
hy him before he left on hie vj^oitlon. the s%le took pleoe in his 
territory, and If he wnn at 111 in the eajpioy of the defendant, he 
would be entitled to the cora®l»8lon of |@10,30, Aooordlng to the 
teatlffloiqr of^glaintlff he w^.b in the eaploy of defendant on 



je > ^.T9 ^i^£) ion Bfiv ttUqjtAiq ••tfAQiotf )t^^«isXq t« a«J;ti«oer 

»i}? vd cATTot^ff ad tum «x«l>it« a*!** XX« tt><ii ban tftvlMNMi X<f 

l^ire^ttioO ^ 40ifC)8c t avoids £>toQdX •tff . ^aaloiTttne 9ci liJIw 

'^ba^ii iU&iumn t>ov$ stfl ^ m ai^.i*>»ifp ^r «<ofl ton •! tep «iX9ifjr ton 

ui •9»l Ku>9ixam •»f, iant/Kinlt.^ *«4* mmirtia «i tl .tfft«Jbft«l«il> 

•14 ffi Msti^ ^o<yl •!< i^ •ti'i aid Ko nftX 94 »«ot»4 miA x4 



7 

July S, 1037. Pislatlff Insistst th^t he ^^as paid a smlary until July 

10, 1937, «nd thnt, th^yefor©, he w"s in the «iwpioy of defeBd«nt 

until July 10, 1337. It Is undisputed, home-ret, th»^t oa the aorning of 

Tuesd?*y, July 6, 13S7, plaintiff oes»ed to ^ ft •alesaiiji f«r defendant, 

&t th*t tia«i he w%s offered * position aa junloY sfslesuwa ©n a 

different baale. He declined to aooept the position. Thereupon he 

sfent to his deeJt in defendant's office and yeaeved hie e ffeote there fxeai 

»Bd left the presides. The relstlonehlp of earployer »nd eanloyee 

rerulrea the consent of both parties* Therefore, It is manifest th-^t 

plaintiff w**.s not In the ea^^loy of the defendant from the tlae on the 

gaoralng of July 6, 1337, when he realigned hy refusing to aeeept the 

neti" position offered to hla. According to the instructions to s^^lesaea, 

irhich were binding on pl«lntlff, he is not entitled to he credited 

"^rlth the eosrailsslon unless the order for the ICX^ tyi^writers w^s plaesd 

by Sears **oebuclt £ Qesipitny before plaintiff severed his connection 

trlth defendant, the record shows th«it the order by l^enrs ^ebuok Sr 

Ooapaay «-'»« plsoed on Ji»ly 6, 1937, sad thst plaintiff severed his 

connection with defeadaat on the Burning of July S, 1937, Henee, there 

Is nothing In the record to est^abllsh thnt the order for the typeirrlters 

vns Isoed prior to the tlae th'?t plaintiff r-slgned, 

Def«Bd«tnt urges thnt the court erred in giving to the jury 

Instruction kmova 9S Ho. 3, re?»dlng nd follows: 

"The jury are further instructed by thc! court th^t if you 
believe froa th<^ evidence th- t pl-^lntiff leveloped th*' order for the 
3«le of 100 typewriters to ienra «^oebuok ^ 0o!8;:?^ny by the defnad%Bt 
and thrt s^ld asle '"is the fruit of plaintiff's efforts, he is 
entitled to recover the oomatlaslon on ®nld sn^le,** 

Tills instruction ignored the defendant's written Instructions to 

sHlesaiea th«t they mist obtain s written or ter in order to be entitled 

to ^. ooaiaiisdlon, nnd th?»t a sslesmsa who le<tvss the employ of defendant 

Is not entitled to eomalaalons on orders thereafter placed, even 

though be TirHs Instrumental In originally soliciting such orders. This 

Instruction ^hb eler>.rly erroneous. Instruction Ho, 4 re/idss 

"The 3ury sre fbrther Instructed by the court tb«tt if you 
find from the evio'etice the si^le of typewriters were aiade ^b alleged 



t 

.fToJtiiio*? »ri* ;rq»oo« o* t«nitio«t •!» •«XB4Rd yaataxlXt 

«i<f ]}«<x»yi»!e ^^£;ir«(l£j[9 fi^d^ till* «f86X ^b xJm\» av> hmoji^lq mn^ yf/OAqm^O 

.b«itBi«''t tti^iJiXq <^4ili# ««Xi^ 9dJt 9t Vttimq A«9aXq •«« 
ifft/t »<**■ 0* swi*-*! «^ batf » #v»io9 «t# J«4* •«^'U/ *fl»f»«»l»C 

tmr«XXo): «« 9aI&#«i «S •sM b« JiiNtfUl aol^ojnlwxi 






.^(- «... 



fcoX^llfie ft^ ot tafelto tti iwfcit© tmttXxy » nlMfio imm %tniii ii^M a^ma^lf-n 

ta^Mtn^ to 1^X^» »fiir aMirt'.»9i «fl^ 4tiB»««Xo9 « tfd<if# bg^ vCtoXscXffiffiOO « o^ 



ia th« oo®?>lnint in se«rJoyd n©e *ith the t«insw af the employment 
nkgyeea^nt of pialntiff, he is entitled to recoreT." 

Thl« Instzuetioa should not bsTe been given. •♦ »e have repeatedly 

beid that the coivtrt should not give ^ pereaptory lnatru«tl©a t© flad 

fojr the plaintiff if the Jury eheuld find tht«t he hni* proved his 0*«e 
n& alleged in the deai'trmtion, »n<X fuTther, th«t It le the duty of 
the court to define tlie iaatues to the jury without referring theaa to 
the Plef^diBgs to «»80ert«l» «ti.«it they ^re." ( Semjer v. j.;ji.ij^noi^ 

CentTf^-l H. R. Q(it ,, 396 111. 464, 473.) The firat inet ruction offered 

by the plaintiff re«><Ja: 

"The court instructg the jury th?^t if you believe froa 
the evidence plaintiff w«8 in the employ of the defend'^nt on 
July 6,, 1337, the day th'<t the written order of 3 «*?<?« Roebuck 
& Coapj^iny for 100 typewriters from the defendant ^f^s 4eiiv©red, 
he is entitled to reeover." 

Ia the trial oourt tber« wsi« no object ion to the giving of thie 

inatruotion. ao objeetioa thereto is voioed in this ooyrt. Apparently, 

the defendant recognised that the inetruction et^^ted the issue to be 

deolded «ia to the 100 typewriters. 

^or the re^isdna stated the judgiMnt of the Muniolpal Court 

of Ohlosgo is reversed and the owuge reminded with direotlona to enter 

» partial judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff %nd against the 

defendant in the sua of I16.88, (bsaed on the sales of type^triters to 

the Outlook Envelope 3o»pany and aeorge s, MoKiernan) and for a new 

trlnl in nooovdnnoe with the views herein expresised sa to the cl«ia 

for ooawiissions on the anle of the ir>o typewriters by the defendant to 

Sears Hoebuek A CoapiRny. 

REVFH«r-) .•t,:,) -s.^^a3I.D WITH OIHSeriONS, 



#«WBVei«f»» •^t to ^-SB ttt tntttU^n «n«f at 

^l>!»*vf>q*T »T«il »*•< tatvif, n^mri %▼««$ too bXM>4e attifomtmai Bltlt 

td t^ul> ftffl al ti tadi ^-x^dtnfi bat^ ^ttottinnl99b •dt «i l^«^«Xi* f • 

MmUU '^ J£iai3§) ^f «i«#T»M« 9# 9niiaxi>^9iri •at 

bwt»Yl9 aoi*«oT*»oi #»tl1: •ifT (.ST* ,*a* ,111 dCfi ^ *o^ ,ii .« ^7jtih?»:: 

<» ^O^J'.rt*''' (»h ^n± '%.^ yoX<pM •!(» al •JWr n-^.-JiTri^I- «>«.TnfjfV» •ft* 

«ifl;f )o M/ilvxs sii^ <»# aolr9«(ii« 00 •;>"« »ted[# ftveo X«li^ 9tU aX 

«xX#£t9;i:«qrTA »ttiM9 Bidt at b9Ci nolto^^do oM ,a9it&urtBnl 

^ 0^ .<»0«nl « »«ii f««[^ be^iai»«»t #fijtt»i»l«l» •tif 

tVtroO X«qiolaji/M silt )• taitm^bul »ii# l>«fa^a aiioaAftT »(f^ no'i 

ito»Tli "tbiifliBa-f «etf<*(» trf^ bail l}i»«t»T9V jiX «ji^fil(P 1« 

«# aitd^it^aqx^ o tsr^^c}) «88.dX$ Ito aua (Ml «U fiL8l>a»lab 

««o « rot ban iai?fli:^iJiOi> . -. ag-xoAO fux.« x"'*<'i'mO aqeXaTa^ 3f<MX|^iiQ »di 

af ie<>ba9t9n ^r.j x^ tti^fttv^Y:" '^'^^ '"'" -^^i flo »nol»«l*a!o«' tot 



^00 ,4 tXitilH diU A^fK tVAVX<^'^'>^ '^ 



mn% 



lisat >-iiI sad Tost-ameBj of 

John ■iaMtecrg, fls©«aea8, / 



II«$8i 



IW* 







Oona«rv?st©T ©f th« Sftats of ' ) o 



ipp«ll««. 



>0K |©!Bff. 



MR. jtr^-tios nmm» ssLrrsHiD tms opiwjes of the soynT. 

flMi ^lalBtiffe filed th«lr bill of eomplalnt in dA&wenitf 
iM «hi(^ thiqr ps^yod that thity b® oonfizsed ae tim3t@«ti for ee»rt&l& 
»eal aatate owned fey Charleffl A. S^jBdb«rg, laocsapstest, which sai4 
real estate h^a fe ©b dcrrlceS to the said iaeajae ptrsoa fey his 
fsthdr, Mels John ^taiiffl»«ifgy by hie last will nxtd tostaat^aat, amtsd 
BaJToJi gs, 1914, fro® tJn* fourth pura^apli of whieh th« following 

"Fotirfeh: I hertcfey beoueoth to my liiRaae son, chari«8 a 
'Sandbtrgj ay eatiye i5ro9®rty or n?.rl ana '^^sli® Jtyeet^ 
Ko9. 1-7 Carl 'treet. I aopoint ay sous llliao m&. 
Ooorg« Trustees 41*- this fuaid. The said tTu»t©% to serve 
without eos»pejaa#.tlon or ehirge or otheT fee© to be 
eitmt^^ without ooase&t of tOie helre.* 

a»d tha Rsld pl?!liit ff« farther ^i^yed foy leave to ent®f lato 

& oeTtalA lease with -vol Kogmi fi&T » period of twenty-five y®s»8 

ftt gsradtnatea rental of fires |1|800 to $1,750 per year. Aaawers 
vere fll@d by the aef«;aisjrt Jolia ^* s-t^ndberg, ^idho la the heis* 

of esld Insane p«>reoa and the duly a?-point«d, OnsTdian ^ 



for «alA Cl^srles A. ^''-laaberg, ineoffipstent. On March 16, 1939, 
a deoree was entartd la the circuit Oonrt In f-^vor of the plain- 
tiff therein the oourt found the Issruea for the plaint if fa and 
oonflr»ed the plali^tiffo as tru^tee@ of the r^nts, isisues smSi 
profits of the real estate so devleed t® and ot^nedi by Charles 
A., Sandberg, Inooisp'itfla&t. the <50ore« further provided ttot. the 



*..;*rT J..- 



■-'■ V 



s'^ffTO* 



'i»v OiiHHt 



,EV 



( 

6 1^ •A^i 5 8 t ■ So «.t r . ^^* - 

'tmtah ,iJia»««tMt fcff« lilw r«i?X tin xrf ,«t»<tt««- ttrfftt : I:^^ .indf't 
.• .-r- -,:■?- . • :-- I :/!?■ 

■«te»«;n/' .Ti^x ^AQ 08T,X<^ 9^ 006, £| «OTt )0 Isitsn ta^ttnlMt^ t» 
^i*rf »/£4 mi HAT ,i|'rM>^'3 - .■ niteli tsf'htt&tmb •/!.* •■' * '"^ ttw 

^i^,.^jl,; t>.;^ fl!)tif>twO fc-y^ -•• " -'■"* '--■• — - - 

nelradO y^ l»«r*vo ztmB tjsmx •d^ to ef^^.ortq 



tra&t Otxspygf #f €I1&|4HNP| wm 9&rmerm.tQT &f the M;»t$%«i $f o't^rliHS 
A» 3%iMab«*i, lBc©tEp®t«a%0 tee a.wth©Tlz®d to pr^^ure nudi eater iiit© 
a l«®.ae srith said Sol I©geB ftjy a perl©«1. &f tts'«uty«-f lv« yemys 

tlis rants, l8sja«» saait pT©flts ti3i@y«of ss yes^ifsd. to %l3«e« plali^ 
tiffs, as tihasttft®. 

th« d«e3P»'i furtM®? pro'^ijled ttet th« #ourt r^taia Juyis- 
dl0tio» of this eat*t«> to ^prevt tli® Itsase imd m^i^i^t&t tl^® tswat 
«ets.t®t On kptiX X, 1939, J0ha :■♦ r^efiufbexf, iadt^tf^uslly, «rja ^» 

Mis aprpeal fey flxissg; Ills ziotlo® of appeal pm:f%m ^sji apsjtal t© tli« 

^pptllat® Court ©f 111 inula, rjr^t ''sis?tTl«tj swil>s®cfu«9lit th^fet^ 

©a p«ti1il6a «t.»ai asetiOR of tfee |slsintif*'e, th« court, on tlm 11th 

fel' ©f April 1®39, aftar the said notiee tf acfs#al imd fesea fllM, 

©Tar tha o'bjectioa of ssild John «".. aaMfeerg, r@isov«d tfe« galA j0li» 

!;• ^aa^T&trg a« Ouiartlsim §^ litsffi .•%»* apf ointigi ©»« S, s, Lifeonatl 

©,» g:u-«t-rdl»ia In hi« plaee and stsadi, to irM.#fe orSsr Jcto )^« '^-a3adte«rg 

ialy ofcjsfctsd a.M sxoepted* 

Tk« defendant John S. I'-aadberi: o©Bt#isds tMt tjfet© Circuit 

Court md B© ;j-uri8<liotiori te #»t«r tlie ore®r ©f .wpr tl II, I93S, 

t«moiflJBg Joha, 'g» S-saaSfe^rg ss g?«araiajs ^ ^lt«m and appoint lag 

1, ^r, Ll^Bati la h%n pla©«, &n& thst t.h« court ^^s without ^ortiB-. 

dletioa t# sat«r thu? ordar in the c«i>«is« lifttur a notion of appeal 

Tm^ to«eii fil"-'.a. in the lowsr ©«?urt, as provldaS foj? tey atatmto, 

tliis provisioa apj?«.r» im Gfe, 110, Psjr. 200, f«o« 76, ©f th« 

Practl©« 4at (111, Fl«v. -.itatsi. 1930) la the sto^iwl nrovlssiea 

Of ih« .4ct, «Hii|i| it is providadi 

*(S) A-a nppmil slj'^ll b« d««ia«s5 tjerfeoti^€ 'miwB th® aoti®« 
©f *s|s«s^l sfeill toe filed in the lower coyrt. After bstag 
dtuly p«rf#<st«€ a® .^pp«k%l nhall be «ll0«i8ses1 witltout BetiOiS, 
asd no at ©10 othsr th«n t'tat l)y wtjlch ttm app®%l is per- 
feettd sits 11 b@ de^B-scl juried let lonal. " 



This oeurt la the ©aa« of Day id L^Ti» Kecei -g'er. PliiBtiff 



j|ji. , lrroy v. Charlas q, J^'estSl^Ji , ^ , j?g.fta<!a.n : | ^^j. ^ .^yroy ^ ?504 111. 4pc:s.S34 
paseed upoa a ouestior. oiail-^-r in oti-rRctar ta that Ib the itii^t-^-nt 



Yftvr- irxifj^ net p'rz^^^ ■•■'■'■: -^itf t>a« ««numlt t»a«itiSMi evdda AliM Mt# #« 
( bstn odMl &^ Xeeqijp Id 99ltmi btJ^9 i»4# «•*%« ^SCGX jKJhHfA !|o t^ 

.niioift vtweX siU at 6t»Xlt a»*or ftjsii 



vftiJOS^*! 



t^fl^ivc 



nL- ' . to 



Uilafcil^i . 



jM£. .▼ 



3 

ea.®«p vh&re the trial eomrt T&m>ff0d m i^ecaiYer, tha plaintiff 

in error, aiii m|?i30iiit4aid tke def radiant ia «rroi* ag ymseiTer, upau 

tlMS givlui: aod mpfgNHTal of a. boBd, 4© aet la hla |>lae«. flat 

Aptpeliatt Qmxit% iM tiiat eaae aatd« 

*tiM8 cyitictsil cmeatioa is this eas« is wfeathty oa 
July 3, 191$. wh«B th<s iastfiat ©ara «ss institutes 
ia th© femBlcipal '"ourt, the pl^^^intiff is error was 
entitled to 9U® ast receiver. The final iS«cr®®, ia 
the case in whlefe pl5i«tiff ia srror ws.s rscsivey, 
was #»t0rM ixt tha Giretiit C©ujpt ©n April 3, W15* 
An appessl ^a» t?3&®ji fT®ai tliat <l®cre-@ #o tMs eourt 
on M»!y 8, 1915, aad the a|>p«t>l "bond fil^d in tha 
Oi^ottit Coart ©n my S, I9l5, Oa #a»e S, 1915, t 
month after t^»e appeal sas o®yf9cte4, the Oireuit 
Oourt €Bt®SQd its br(S«r OTSTiilnif f©r tit® rsmovsl 
®f th® rf©ai"?§r wipoiQ the api^i-oT'si and filing of ?j 
11^,000 feoatt by the d®f ss^aat ir* error. I'hat teoM 
isras aooroved on July 14, 1915, -aaa filed on Jaly 
17, 191&. It t&llmm, tiierefor©, that the s^ppftfil 
from the fiaal decree in th« Circuit Court to th-is 
©ourt h'M h&&n n---'rf#ot®f^ tt®r©r@ thss oritur of the 
Oirmiit ••■ourt for thf rsMOTal of the xeoeiver -was 



Xt is th« law Hisss-t a perfected appeal ois«r?it©s to 
stay aay further nroooeSiafS by the court reBdering 
the Jwl^-ffl(Kat or deor^-^e appealoi fro©.' The People 
^» ?f§ff 2?T8 111. 181; M n'^ttw Thatcher. 7 III. 
(2 alla)lS7; iisia "^^^ ^8»>8- 183 Ul. 180 j Jeakina 
V* |.^f^.^.f Si luT 1877^ 

Th« wale of Ia« timt a^plis® is thst prsyiai- to^r aM »ejp«- 
feetiug- a» app'K®.! 4tttti»i th« p«Bd®iioy of a aotioa to vacate th« 
3u-1gm«at mklrm th« ssotion suad deprives the trial eourt ©f Juris- 
ts let ion t® «nt«jr asy ord«r thereon, aiad th« appeal J^ tfesr-'for© 
fro® a fisisl ^mdjsssMsm* ii©t«ithffitaJi(3,i)ag- th« pondexi)^ ©f tiieh saotion. 
feeCoY ▼. kfm9 Pr JatiBjT^ Co.. S78' 111. 27S, 

The pl5-iBtlff« r®t>ly to defsndr.at's ooiitemtion thr^t tht 
Cireuit Oo'urt haa no Jurisdietion to eater tht ordos of kprih 11, 
1939, jrnoovlai J^taa ii:. ;>siidh«rg ae ptardian |4 litWB asi apps lut- 
ing i'. M. l.ihoi»ti ia his plaeo by etatia^; that tho court ?fithla 
thirty fey® fro® the ©ntry ©f the d©oro« in question eattrta. this 
order, s8d under th© statute It wa.s s'ithiu th« period allow®^ th® 
court to a««B^ or oth®r«i®« ®at#r ®«eh ordlsr wlthlii thiS thirty tey 
liffiit t.ft«r th« eatry of th© Judgaeiit or dsar«e. fhlB, however, 
le i3K>t aa moswer to the qtiostion ttet hy the g®rvio® of notice of 



r 



ft<f'." .»9rlrr alif Ol S , 




:M-a 


:'>Xft At tlU/C 


nt? ^•j>"-^i?v ai ig.;D p.'? .u /t*^.' 


-.t^iT-? ccV:" 


b&ti 




njcr* 




«JI ,«nitto*ib i«fii 




,t«Yl«-rj»T v>fm ■>: 




.SX«X ,€ ll«q* 




ttii9& »Xdt 9# 




«(# at »f 




€ ,8XSi ,c 




#iflvsid »i 




XcvAJKi** »-' 




Jl v 




ba 




XJUru iie 


- ^ i-c; iJ'iVaiv^Ci.i 'gr* 


iMcpga Mf 


InJ ft ,?,t(il ,tX 


alrft •# n« 


.V * . «. 


Od* to Ir- 




ascK ic»Ti«»»s"i <:'/!? TO .i ;' 


■JOT TI'.'C 


(fti iB*t«K»qi^ i«^< ' "')9lT»{;r 


• . 


9al9»fta»i #- tt' B^x 









^ttiiift to ^firoo X«it# MOf ••vltqfJb Imu a«|#«0 •ffif wrJtm taMi^Atft 

,XX ii'x<fi. to xsMo mI# «0^«9 esf iioXt»il^iiTirt w tsti ttti^O fltmtAO 
"taioq^M ba» a^t^l j^ imimmm b* ^fnih sti^X, ^oiToiMl «(|etX 

aidti^ #Tue9 aiAS #«if# iioltisi'B ftf >ojsXq jaXii oi Xtmi%<ii >}nl 



4 

appeal by %h» dsf^siteat an appe^sl »m« -»#rf«cted, aad th« statute 

whi#i ««* Jiaif« oaetgd provides tmt a© &pp«al sMll b© dlamia^td 

islth©Bt i^tiet, fm& m step sth,®y fttea tlmt l^ whieli t&e apKp*sti 

is p$rf«ot«<3 «lif?.ll "be dte^ae^, juried iotioBn.l. t® are of the opiaien 

tJmt oMer -feh« provlaiom of -Usa eta tut® quoted, the appeal isms 

perfected, bmt the plaintiffs still UTg«s tls&t tht ©?<i«x ia «?u®stl0a 

ims eat«3r«4 h«f03rf s «f0i^ipsedi®.s h#iid «a.8 slfm«d Isy ths aef tadant 

aad ».ppm99^ fey the ©oiiyt, %M1« It ie trm that in *r4«r to step 

opers-tios of th» ^mdigatait ©f deear^e a «u:;;'«y«ea«ii® wmst h9 g?«,.at«4, 

and feOBd ®iga©a, still that *o«8 not ©ffect a isert® ^h®r® aa 

a^l?«ia h&8 h«a» t^mlsffia, asi «^« do»« lu th® inataat eas«. This Is 

eet cmt hy the provleio.,^. of Mt, 20B,, ^m* 8S, Ch. 110 ©f the 

Oirll Fmstice A©t, whe3p« It i« provided, ia part; 

»4a a|ss>«*?l to the Aip|>ell®te ©r 3w?>x«aiie Cctvrt ®h«,Il 
ope«kte a» a tRs^eysedea® only tf sjtcl ^ss th© aDpsll-mt, 
after aoti^ee toly s©rr»d, shall glvs aM fll© a bsnd 
iA a reaeoBshle amount to secur*!': the ndir®rse nayty." 

Se> aaadet the faets in thig ease it i© ^.sparest thst ss, a^p^^l 

was taken hut no supereedeae w^s granted laatil the oourt ordered 

thftt a eopertedeae he great ed upoei th® execution by the Aef@9^^s«t 

of e boBdr #iioh ff^e efter Hie dete vhmi the o^9t Ib «meatle& «fte 

entered. An appeal aaiay be av3tle<? of er®ii thoui^ a «ai>ersed«n« 
aay not be grs.nted, ani If %'m.% Is so it would ee^ that the otiOoHf 
«ould be wl^otjt jurisdiettoB to remo've the isa-rtles who are appeal- 

:lAg, wpoa the motion, of one of tbe adverae parties. In doing' so 
the ootirt «f©«ld be deprivlag tbe pe.rty litl.7»r»t of the right to 
appeal, a« provided for by law, aud sitice the appeal was pesdJiaf 

the eourt errod in siatertainine the jaotion to rwasova the defeadaat 

^©h» ii, 'iaadfoeri as Gusrdlaa ad. litea of Oharlee A. '/J4i,Mte«rg, aoa 

mmm. mmM* 

The defendajEJt coatead® that the Cireuit Court te£5 ao Juris- 

dlotioa to ooasid#r tho ooaplaiat filed by the pl?--iatiff8 ©r gmkUt 



aoi;r94Mivs At Cj»ft««> •/£# fttf^ •$%& liJttft »fti»niiKX«} ttt ttftS «to#Mt««^ 

#ajal&c:»%«lt tJlt x^ hinmtm turn tfietfi ftJM»teer«*ffira e 9%c\9^4 b9fttm nsn 

«ie#s of iK*IH:» ci #jRdi^ Mrt^ «1 tl 0Xlini .#ic£nBro •!£# x^ tvwwiirqm bum 

tetftMEs •# f9Mm &^&e«s*cnM « MVMfi to tttumtmt fjft to aeit««*q» 

«« ovoi^ ootooft Ji taotiro t«8 ftooA tmit XXi#« ,{)Mtat» l«etf Imu 

«i sidT •o«.«io ^B£^efti off^ oJ oaoft iMSir «« 4ii»^# aootf mtid JU%^iq» 

%At li> aXX .jfC!) ,^ .MPv ,|»#t »^*''' -*"- <i«iv9ih& •if;^ tfiT #fio fot 

Itt^ «l ,tHl6^V«l(| &a ... ..^^ «toA »oi#o«x'% XiTlO 

.1'^ ,*iinoo %fsA 9mii*<^ "i**t# 

XjBOq^i? I ft oojeo fttfft ol ato«t ^1 tnhms ^^t 

'• uttm imtoBtn mam w^mbtmmmnt oa ImI JMUt ft«v 

tf-it.sbit^^'C9& •{i^ i(<^ oeUvooxo suit flMfv fto^iMtii ttf oawfroiftoqiMt e t4Ml# 

I'MMU out ^JKifer i»M Mmnr tl «» mi tM^f ti fcsjt ,Imi#«J!!18 94 ttui xm 

"Sam^s ^rs odv m^itrjuf? oii# iivo»«« o# aoJ^toX^vltM^ ^tfOtUtkm otf ^Xiwi 

00 nfixlmk aZ •ool^w^ oonnirjto •ij# )o »ae to Boitr^a oif^ aoqir ,:sixci 

of t»*siJ* «(rf# to tasBi:tiil xi^Mq «d» faUhrXt^jo* otf f>Xi»#v t^avoo mC# 

liiiiM^ 9mm Summit »^^ ooaio l«^ «««£ t^ xtft Mlivosq •« 4j;«i^iq|B 

#««ft«<*t«ll otff ov«»rz lit aolton m» n/OtUmiHmtam Mk Junrao nifoo mA$ 

g^ ...^.r^,„ < .. •.f-..--,.^ *^ g»^ti j^ atlb««E/i9 mm n%94bmmk /i mloV 

-ai-SHt cut •: '. :..:^^ .x^i,-^^. ndf t.erf* aM o iwoo liMi»Wtii» Mff 



thit> x>€ll@f pT&fm^ ftit, tM ^iTfes tbrnt It i» essential in the 
©re?!tl©te of a tsetaa^tttmry tsust tisat th« t«>stat©» &d«<^ntely 
i!idle%.te 1^ th« t®ji»»i( of Mia will Me l^ttemtloB t^ ernmt^ sueh a 
trust by uata^ Isapjaije'e suffiolaEt to sever th« legal froa the 
eouitable eetmt©, slM with such dearth isty s« to id®ntl3fV t^« 
te«aefietsxt6e ©f th® proptrty oat of whleh the trwst is t® tak» 
affecrt* 

Wh«a «« Wfsm to eoB«l!?«T th« Fourth Puragrsi^ ©f the last 
will aad t@sita.Bse&t of liels Js^ 3a,Mbez-g, dee^astt^, «« find th« 
will provides that the tsststor e^ar^ysfl to his imssB® eim, Cha.rXee 
4, Ssjyiberg^ hia entire preptrty on c-^rl aiu9 telle :?treet, ioe* 
l«-7 Oarl street, in Ohi«^ige, smd theit provides that the testator's 
mttm William aad George are to be the trustees of the inosate wliieli 
le received from tiie huildlisi»: aad- land ta r!U.estlo». 

ihlle it la true that thie provieloa does not ®®t forth in 
wasted detail the pvirpoeee of thie nrovisioa, it is appsr^ot that 
the testator wished that hie insane eetn t^vtia fsoeiv® the pro^rty 
im oueetion aM tte-t the fund® derives! froas thie proiHirty «er?? to he 
meed for the heaafit of this soa^i aad thst this fujad mmni^ tee 
adffii&letered by hie Bon^ who ere cattocl tru»teee of this ftmS. 

The oeectt, in the oonei^enattion of thie qnieetion, provided 
1^ the deoree whioh »-sts entered that the fruet Cossptjsy of Ohicsgo, 
«fe» c0r:.?s®TV5itor of the ;v0tat® of Charles it* S^tadfeerg, iaoosip'Stemt, 
and as euoh the o^ner of the fee, prooeed to proeuni the pi^per 
authorisation to enter into and execute a leagie with Sol Kegexi Ufon 
the aforesaid rental terns provided for hy thie propeeed leaee. the 
propoeed leaee provides that 11300 per year ie to h« p^ild for the 
firet five yef^ra| 1156© per year for the seooBd five yeare; 
fldSO oer yo'^.r for the third five years; $XQ$X> per year for the 
fourth five years, and 11750 per year for the l?®t five year®, .sJBd 
it ffiust he ooBsldered %h&.t hy the entry of the deoree the sourt 
approved ©f the tar«« of thie lease, for it is further i>r©via«d 



i 

p. Aou^ »tes^o ot nelttttitmi miM Htm 9id to rngx^t ^dt x(f aifJNliiJtoi 

•3E^^ 'vvTif 9sl;t stolci% to tifo t^i*^e«q wii t« «9iti^Colt«a*ef 

^^'in^^lmr'F. aadoli •!*){ lo #na«iQ#»e# te« IXi« 
• fto'4 4#Mi«:^ X^:ca«[Ovii «tJ;tiw aljtf ^^^x^tftajst .A 

Ai if#*rot >f» #on tMft ff«l«iv««!| •ln# #40!i# 4Mi<s# «^ H titlti^ 

9<f «# nx§v x^T9«0Tr ftin^ «•«) f>»Ti«»A mJba»n mdt tetit tea a«»i^Mup «it 
•«r «#«<«« jbotft sXii^ f(i/i$ lme> «ao« «i<(# 1« tJttnB»4 •4.^ iMUt I^mt 

T»<30s«r Hkt mt»inQ of b^^moim #••% t^ t« minw w(# d»m 9» bOM 

A.-'R ■r.'^ 5IIH7 94 (^ ihjt %a»%. %%q OOQXf #«(f# Miiwmi •M»l i»»lM)90«a 

■5ii6©x •▼X"X &a«n»»» ajSJ «ol «««x *»<I OMXl J««^t •■"f'^"- ^""^it 

«if.t let tsoijF •xtKF OMtilt ;s9;j^f vrit lv%kA1t •!&'»•) *xe«^ -;.' i^^ 

fM-^ ^■^'%m% «Ylt M;C;X «C{« ««t 1U»t VMf 98fil !«« ^itM^Y ^V-^*^ £(^^'c<ol 

#t£rOO MCiT MYOftfr 9At to TKfOB MlaT ^ t«At hv%9bkw^ b4 #»tiai ii 



i 

ttet th© Trust C-afispeay of Ghigag^© as ©on8»rvmt©y of th© s;:®tat® 
©f Oharl98 *. -'aa^Sfeftyg, laecMsspet^^-l, upeu receipt af the s!?ld 
rsBtala Is to turn over tfe© fand t© ifllll&as J. :''*a,M'b«rf ataA 
dfE^erge s. a«^4be3Pg, s® trustees isj^er t&e li?st will aM testament 
Of Ilel« Jf^a iandteerg, (S«eft3,8«<!. 

It was thft intsfitioa of th« tsstate? In th« «zteuti@n of 
\'nX9 lMM% will aM t^atasidat te i^rovido a fund to be us@(S for 
the benefit of aharles A. SsiuSboxi, ineoispeteiit, 9.M tmt, in a 
lieamiire, is indioatod fey the faot timt th« two oouo i^ ajre te 
act ia th« diatTlbutioB of the fund are mQt to reeelvt any piy 
or reisEaaaeration for their serrioes. 

fhe goaoral rule is that the words 'trast* and trutstees,* 
are effective in oreatlB^: a trust hut are aot nece»<;ary. If the 
9111 by itn tones mm a whole ahowo a purpose of eremtlEf % trusty 
though ae epeoial words tre used, it le euffieleat, ^d if it 
olearly a^ypeare from the texue of the flocufflont that it mo the Izi* 
teatioo of the testator to create a trust for st lawful purpose tad 
for the iiaa«gOBieat of the estate, sueh purpose sill be approved by 
the courts, 

0»e of the cases eitsd la support of this coi^t^atiOB Is 
Wjjy^bu^h V. ^la^meh. 253 111. 40T, whore the -uprejae Court held 
that eveo thoutih the first isaragiMsi^ of a. will, staodipg JatloaOy 
Testa the wldo* eith aa absolute fCO , yet if a out secnaoat para-^ 
graph ©learly shows that the testator'iu 'iateation *as to.oro'ste & 
trust estate for t^e beaefit of the widow aad his ohildrea, iBOlud- 
iag those of a foznor wife, the will lOtouliJ be construed as ereatiag 
euoh trust estate aad aot as gi-riag the wid^^ aa absolute fee. 

i^sn 90 eomsider the f lad lags of the court upoa tho 
tiiaiaotor of the isproTeffisat, we flad this: 

"The court further flads that by reaeon of the r^pid 

sad ezteasive growth of the City of ^'hieago, the eh'tage 
la the oMracter of the aelghborhood, aad th»t the teuildlag 
aow upon said pnsmisa® has become aa uadeslr^able type of 
building,, aad that tho j^iyslcal property itself Is %n a 



r&l bitut •€ €t ^ittn « •MTotcr M tMMw;fB9# ton SXtm t 

« £1.' . :.)«» j,ifae*«^p»twti 4i^»- ■' 1« tl'}" •'-■■ ■• '.■ 

•t »«« atCS toot f«# C #0«t f/f;r X^^ »«t«»i... . -i 4:;-^^.i:f'.'^«V 

• e«»iyx»e Xi»xi# lift AOltMiMUMl 7* 

tdf tl .fx^i'^Aftoiui #06 avji #»4r tsjuft « ^i^ooSA at «vi/ottt» oiui 

«#{ixrxt « |^Ii««to to »Rt :^ s4K«o# Rti x# XXIv 

%£Ui ^tffolei'ltiifii «i #i «i»«ttii »it« obnotf Xiii90<|« m jMEs'MMlt 

-£ti ' - ^pb •!(# to a«xo# t4# iBott o««04iiSi» tl^jsOJEo 

Ms &ciuft{^^(^ iL'\ !'^t a o#««to &i x(^$Mi»$t oji;# to aoJitt»t 

^(i feOTOXq^ 04 XXi<i^ &: . ;,<:: ,■ ^- } ;>$ »4(i- If »— OBMroit Olit tCOt 

•ojhuroo oiI# 

«i ffOi;irii-Tuotj ai-aj ':c ifaoc.ctfa uA 0-^$lQ i»ajao »xi* 'to ooO 
fcXaxi #TifoJ »««aq^ sfi' ."" " . iXX ^^ jjfuHtnlit «y f(«iy<:f)jDi ft 

:. ii l»t ^i#^^ v-Aj^wiio tto il#Xv vomw o4# «#«0¥ 

v.. <■.^,.. .v^ . .V >^oi#a9#iU '«*««# J^tO(»# lUii ^«<^t a»ctfio v[Xs«oXo 4q[«Sg| 

«i&juXoca i,m%tltsi» ci£( i»as woMw »4« to #Xloao4 Oiit «o1i o#«#bo #«01# 

eoxa »i» c-sAjni' .'jog otf tX£n>«i«i: Ill's -iwl* .^tiw i«««Ot « tO »9Wit ^A 

• »0"| «; -iJ K-nL-l* ;>'.{;> ..ffi-'-^^ff ||j|s Joa.lUMi »#^0» ^flfri-j rfrt.,« 

tti'^i J■^^■.„ „...il i(ii| n;»|i4«a<»0 0« mii 

'"...jit 0«r ,ti|0filOVa'£iptt.Olt# to %>;.i-. ir ct! 



@t t-maats irh® aJ*© mBa%l® t© m-y subst-intial rents, feps 
fe«ooBs® uaproduotlv©, mil th@ ast iaooffi« h^s dlaslalah«<i 
r.-^pldiy; th'-i,t the i.-to3??«? ineome f©r tlie ycAv sn^ilng 
July 1, 1S33, ':iiai0\mt@d to |l»30&. '^j»d the n»t irnnQim 

|S7f.S0.« 

fh«ath» comTli, as we h&rt alyea?Sf ladleatsd %m tfeit opinion, 
foua^ the r«atai to h& v^etmive^ f®r 0^:.^U sf the y®'-'<.T8 ^BrtBg tb® 
coatlnuanc® of th& t®f« to tee faif and I'emsom-ibie imfl t© the beet 
Interest tat ttoe estatt ©f Ck--s.yleg 4. ^nnaJserg, Incospstsnt, It 
Is to be note«l! that in tlie lieoa^e the court let^tned jurisdiction 
fer the pur|K>«e of a<l»inl«t«rlsif "Kfee af©r®s©.ld trust estate. 

Under the oircuffis^t'^nGea as tliey airpessr frojK thle record., 
the oourt did not err in enterini? the deeree in qu®8ti©a. 

Ot'aer ■•'mestieBs hmre b^^tB rsleed, but we de not oonsider 
then important, and for the re.^«eias. sti^st©?!, the dfli«»ee is afflraed 
in p-iT% tmd revereed in part* 



BBtfaCI, J, 8F«©l4l.LY COMG0R IMGi 

. I mgree t^t the deouse ehould be afflmed. I ?%« of 
the opinion, however, that he ohsneeller hid the ri^^ to reaoTe 
the person then noting as gi^urdinn ^ l^ti^a and to appoint a 

euecdS'vOr gu.'^ rdi-^'n ^d litea in his stead. Furthermore, the ehna- 
eellor oould net until the supereedO'se bond "ms filed. It will 
be xea<«bered alto that the notioe of mppei^l does not (%nd, of 
eeuree, <K>ald n::>t) aeeira error as to the remoTml of the guardian. 

ApT>«*r«ntly, th«r® m%w no «.pTi*««l from the ordar removinfi' the fuar- 
dlan» Htnse, the fomer guardian §£ Xlteai is in no poaltion to 
nesigm or arg^ue aiqr arrore he?-©, the easj@s he relies on mre vHSder 
the fonser prH-otloe. Then the ©r©>ve«mtiot> of an .appealj[ ae dls«» 
tlnguiahed fro® f^. writ of error J «ms dependent on the approT^rsi 
of a bond within the tlfije limited. Then the eaee «as in the 
same noeition -p if a sutjsrsedeae h^.'A been granted. Iftader the old 
praotioe shore the ll'tigant eued out a writ of err©r, he was not 






t<d* gni"I,^ " '^ dO>st «»1E b»Vl»3-M ria Off i Ja-iT Bdt btlUOl 

•T ,*~^, *-...- ;i ,gt*(i6arS .A m^iX'dO to »t»#M OJit t» irs#Ytt<U 

w^ #fls tt&oo Mft ••tMt) ftif^ tU iiuif b9tea ttf of tl 
^ ^ "' ""OtJ! Sift !|aii«tsiiilAlk« to too^Tine; •At tot 

<' ,, X^At «jp Booaetaiyfoiclo oiW ^a^«T^ 

■>-'-T9»fe Oif# ;iflll»*«0 Hi »«• i ^t; oo srf* 

l»'l. ,4'00i--i iXft 5 0T«1 SiSOi^ :' 

ftoatltte ei o•t»»^ »dt .r&i^f^t -t a/fJ tot ton ^tftifttOTCl anrf^ 

li feoe7»vtt fen i 



•Toor^s o# «r(iiT «dt &Ml «»XJOMMi» oil' »«uC» ,«»f«»QiC ^AitaiQO &tit 

: ^ iry >v 9# fiiftx mfll ^ ttal^«tfa 0« ^^tOfi flltf# OoaTO^ 0£(t 

-4ii^ f?iJ» ^i^xtrnv^rruri .!t«o#» ttltf «U ittflX t" tfvi t«>.«ftoo»« 

XXlw #1 .d«XXt mim bocH^ a.^ia>ot«t9<itt «;((« ikia>.< ^a-. 0^X»«o toXXoo 

te ,£aa) #<»a £h»oj^ IxlKirQfl tro ooi#«w orft t4M{t coX^ SHrf«^«»«wt e«r 

.a.'lfe^^x^ ftd* to Xi*W)«»t sdt «* •» toa-so mitoji U->a htrntQ ^«?"""^~ 

-XiM*:? «rf* VMi^otmt xtiit'si> ^it aswtt Xi!io<j<?.« oar B*m »t*jrf* «t-'^^^^^ '• - 

«»# acltinm 08 flri «1 JSj^ii ' ;^-t er^^ tocnrot «ift ,oeo»8 aiBtb 

-aiib »a ]^X^«q<5r-3 ttfi' to «toij^in>»^»OKflf «£l# Jtef- i«i«rot «?'•?# 

iilo 9dc . .^8i»»<r^a « tX » ' £iOi#x 



til® writ of ®ry©3r pis.0tl«« wb:tr« b& arupereMeas wmn prsmt©*!, tiba 
trial ooMrt ©©uld osuPotc® its deo?®s or Judge#at. Mew, !ajweif@r, 
uader ^9g0ti®n ?4 ot tii® ci'rii :Pa?=tieilee 4et, orders, ^ad^sats and 
d«ejr«9S in etvtl easta tfeat «?®3f« formerly reviewable by writ of 
error oar s^pmlg &r« sutejeot t« rt¥i«® Iby notice of appeal, "ueh 
;@vle« is d«»i^iated as appeal ^nd €:&nstltut«@ a aontiftoatloa 
ot tlie proe«*^d[lJig la tfet e<mrt below. 'mete mpt>e?a. >AW^eT th,© 
0tiril l^ractlet 4et prtaeents to tk^ Tevlswii^ e^uzft iO. le^aes 
whteli forffldrly w«r« preseBtaf? toy a:^i*?«&l and!, writ ef erT»r, la 
eoanlderlBfc eaeea th-?s-t %r« olt«d ?».nj3 whlei!. areee tiaa.d«r th« ©Id 
JPractlee Aet, the^^® distinct ioas- »ast 1i@ k«pt is sixid* Uisrtll a 
emp&TB9Am.» tooud is filed, th« trial ©aurt bae a. right oa a proper 
showing, vlthln the tena, to ▼s.«?<t® or aao^aify Ite orders, ju'^s-iiisati 
and deer«d9* iven If $;; oenslder the ^olnt as i>rei»«rly raised, the 
record does z^t eiiow th&t the ehaxioellor ateiieed hie disoretioa. 
The deeree provided to it the Olroult Omirt retain juriedlotloa to 
approve the l<^ee and to administer the tra^t eetate* therefore, 
in aay evefit, the jurledlctlon of the Clroy.lt Sourt over the eufe- 
jeot sMtter %sd the part lee, eontlnuedt 



«««▼»«(»( ,«o'^ .ta<M9&»t vo ••«••& c^l •ototc* iXtou gium l»tx* 

•it# «•!;«» J»ecrqr£ Jtiir* .w^lttf #tuK»« 9di ai aoitoa^d^q Aiit to 

al .itoi^® to ^iTV ioe Xo0^e;« 1^ li«i^ii94k«7«( ftl»« ^Ivoariot 

bio 9ft$ voftMT oiiotft tfMi(« ta« ^#io a-UK tMi# oottjco ;^in6l!^adt> 

%ii><;9ir(^ « (3« tOkkx e tt£xl. tme* Xisi;t# ^df ^b^lkt oi bootf a«otit»to<2«ni 

atmAi/:f.ti «««o5«o t^i t^i^os to •tts^Mr.Pi ^an^t o<U aidtlv ,])aiff .49 

oxf:^ ,feo»ie<x X'^'ii^^^ro^? *•<* ^oIoq 9ni$ t^hlsaoo >■:■* tl ae»7r>f »»t»xa9b bMM 

,tfcit9io*tb 9lii Hmuisi iGXiooouuto ttt tMdt mufo #o« «oot h%—x 

9t aelfxitbtJrul aIrft9X irsfi>0 llufxIO ttitt tifit f>«Mtvotq ta^iooA »4T 

-tfim 4m(# tstc ii/oviO od^ to irolfoibolTivt Oii^ ,Mrv» t*« oi 

.6€<£flKi;^£C0o ,9i9JtfTM; 9dt bam tfiStm #00^ 






Bio pA^im m,, I '. 



:oT ommion, tt ^V, 




^efe»*aat8-*ii|>pftllamt8, ) 



TROM 
OlHCUlf eOUHT 
^OK OOUBTT. 



305 I.A. 499 



2-, 



MR. JtJ:>TX0« HS;SSL BSilViEt]:) fKS OPlfilOU OF THg COU??f . 

Tfela mik8 &ft aetien la eoulty ia th« Circuit Oourt ct c©«k 
County by the H^al INielelitF '-©»!K^y, a eeiporation, a^-ralasst tlM 
Rw* Packing CoMT?»By, a eorporstioa, aa^ W. 0. Poosnilp, 1*« 
Pittsldeat, eeeklng to enjolm eertaia alleged acts of tr?il»H»irk 
and tiade twjBse iBfrlngaaieiit sad of alleged unfslr busia«©s eo»- 
petltloit aad for &n aoooimtlng of the alleg«d ^teasfos &xA profits 
arlelxig thertfTO®. The oas« wae hoard by « fflister ia (dtemceyy to 
vlioffi the Oi^uee «as? yeforred by th« ©aurt, vir)?io found for the plains 
tiff. Objeetlone to hl« report v@tb fllad, oYorruled and stood »• 
exceptions, and the trial oourt uj^eld the MsBter ?nd entered a 
deorae vto prayed for In the eoaiplalnt, froffl iitiloh decree the 
liefendsste luiYe perfected thla appeal. 

The facte '^a they appear in the record are that the 
plaintiff, leal PaeklSM Comrm^ny, le an Xlllaols oerpor^tlon, ea- 
gagod in the aaaufaeture and sale of fmnkfurtere and other meat 
produetB throui^hout Chlofflig* and Its »ul:nirb«. The def sndaate are 
Heo Paokin^ Cosip ay, &n Illlnnla orporatloa, al^ailarly en- 
§age4» and U, c, Poesulo, Ite Fresldaat. Both eompanlee spend 
large «mm In advert Is lag, end In soms plaooe, aueh as --outh 
Chleago, Ohioago Kelghta aad Ros^ill, art ooatpetltora. Ther® i« 
a brief outline of the bletorle background of the t»o oompsnles, 
aad frosi the briefe It appears that about the year 1920, the 
Rosl -auaage Coa^s&Mgr (not the plaintiff here) was ergsnlted by 



^ 



•IS 



AW 
-5 



GC AJ508 



ltT^«^&/>ic# to «#•« te»«Jii« ai«tti»« ttA«t^)B» et a^M»M ,sr 
•■^o :?««aiiiMr tlJitacr D>»8»XX« %• bam tm^m^it^all/tat wum r^ 

•f fiL«»asilo ffl %»t»4w ft ^tf htmtl mmn %%0a ■4ft «iMftte«4»ffl ffti < 

-«» ,x»eltist©(j«oo siooilXI r. ^ i«aaK»0 ^i©j?<i XiS^H ^ttitoirX^ 

t^ea Tstf^o Aon at«^ti}tJla««1 )• •!£• te« •tutnz'Umim •di aX b%:^a% 

ba9^ MlArctnod d^oH .to^fcittM^ ■#! «qXmfi h/ae ,l>«SkiC9 

«0*Xa?gffiO9 ovt 0ii(r to bauirr^ioAsd oiTOtaiii •!(# t« •aiX^xro ttXi:er b 



Yisrlous ffi^mt Am^XsT^^ one ef whos i^s ^. C-. F&esuXp, on.@ of the 
d«fs»dbjita here, i»ho was foie isaay y«a.i« Its pres»id«»l^ a i8««lfe«r 
ef its Boa^rd of BSHraetora, ana also th9 operator of % r^rivato 
meat route diet ?i1?ut lag its products. It rsglg-ters^ &s a trade* 
•ark or trao0 .:?3«o with th# secretary of ^tat® of Illl&ois a 
eortalCi devlee, gsnoj^ally doseriboS a@ a ahiltldi, whloh shield 
wme oomposedl of the fmrlous Xottero ^.l^ing up the wordo *H«iJ, 
Brand, Heal Musaige Oo*** It sold its produots in various types 
of boxee or oont-^inors, one of ohioh, except f@r tlie ti(iM9 used on 
it, «s.e aprmresttly ve3>y similar to a oontninor subsoqmsatly u8e<S 
by the plsiatifl mod Introduoed in eridenoe at the trial as am 
tJfelbit. 

^bout the year 193t, ^ml Umamm$t Gtmpany weat into 
bankruptey and oertain of its assets were sold to the Heal Paekiag 
Company, the plaiatiff la the present prooeediags* Followiag this 
bankruptcqf and s%3.ft, i«. c, Foosulp sas no longer siseooiated with 
it or its ^ueces or but oostic ed to opesraite a private seat route 
as he had been doing for ahout tv«Bty years^ soiling his Droduots 
in similar boxos with Tertsillion printing with the tirorde *He^l ^snd 
Tasty," and his own initials "S. C P.* S. C. Pooculp testified 
that about May 1937 he tuzned oirer his own sausage business to i^eo 
Faelcini.' ''.e«'ap7).ny, the other defendant in 'tihese pr»oeedisp>, whioh 
he had previously orpmniaed and in whioh he had a coBtrolliMi; iia- 
terost; tbat the letters* R, t, O," stood for Hetailera* .":"u4lity 
Oypinization, and its tra<le<-ffiark w^s %lso registered with the 
Seorotary of ^t-^te of Illinois and oont«in«d the words "Retailers* 
Scjuity Organization, Heo Paoking o.* In the latter part of 
193S and the early montim of 103f, the dofendant uaed a box or 
flioht«?iiner whloh wss introduoed im @vid@noo at the triml %s mn 
exhibit. 

the «ub|#ot of this oontroversy is n^ethor thore wss 
an i8iit)tios of the box th@t iraus used by the plaintiff as a eon- 



%at to MO ,«XinMH ,0 .ti m4sm mtdt t* mm ,t«»XM* #Ma MR>/isv 

T»«liifta £ ^*i tot »4w fri* t»^«^ otactostoft 

•i«Tl'i tfft mUU l»ii<r ^5\9tovf%iQ to b^Aoa vti t« 

hUkd* a^l^ ^bUliU >a»A xi.iM90^^ ,9eiT»» olAt^M 

X4»it* «Mfi« •df qff yolMia sto^^oI aneZYsv •sii to 6«Mqm» •«• 

••^rX^ ntf9tt0f oi •totfftnc a#l bXo« #1 **»«0 •a«a««& XmA ^testfl 

80 (tOOtf MUtC tJCCi lot fqpMXA ^Kol >W to ^'fO ^rcfoitftfloo to toxotf t« 
ft-- e <a TsXiaia p:»T ^X^ i '^ 

«irf# ^«oXX«^ '"-■'••*l<| #ao«»to aif^ /u rti#ttlr,Xq mI» ,.jn 

ifX' .' - i,;(aoX oa ajw gXuio*^ •'^ «9 ,0X>9 bOit tp^'tfl^^^ ^" 

ttivo^ ^^ ?in ^3 -' ~ 3#«flH||« •# hmttUints tad to aoooim ati t« tl 

■t«0fee* u^i.^c- ^rxMx T^flN^*^ *vo€» vet saloft ao»<f ftud oltf B« 

6as Xi8»: .>^^v.^ •f.'- '*'■' iMliaXxe! MiXXXnroT (f#l« ••xotf ««XUia Al 

boltitsef qXmwe^ .... ".H .: .M* ^Ittnl mro sixi tai? ",x#««T 

•oJ!{ o# aaooXaiRf oi^Muraa av« alii -xato ba/nift oif TS9X x«X t&o<fa tMdt 

ifoiifv ««9cX&»ooe%q aaailt «! ttuAm»'i9b fdio ndt ,v>a<)»oo goUoM 

-411 mtill&itaxid e I>*rf «rf dhllte ai "^tt^ fiatalBciTC xX»woiT«*«<T *«* wt 

XJMlli^ •' ♦n»ii;**»a x«t boo*a *>* . • '■■Tft##»X arft td-t -S- i^f 

•ri^ j'^l- f:3';fj^sI\4£^T oqIs a/'^f in ^ - , r a#l haw ,froi; J 

•awXlr. -l«rifXl 'ir 

to t?.*-.? . .-..:) t*Xir>s 

TH ni}ti!l) c . tXTisa ftsiS Sou 8CQX 

jde 9? ££ttf odi #p 90ii«^ ol eaw jcfoJtdff «ottX»#ji«« 

.#Jkc7i^a 
immr »foi{# itaKtaffv «i x«««vo«^£M»ii aiift to ^eot<t<'* *<^7 



3 

desist lisiBg %&« tm#©«ai&y|£ m&d. tmsl# »,««« ©f »H®sl» aM tilt 

ttoat It Jm« tw© iBOffiths* supply of fe@s:©« sa Jaasi sM tMt it 

would B0t lHilts,t® the label, %sma«-fflgi^k, daslirii ^®i f#fm af ni^ 
TtrfetglEM;' fcsiag nem %y tli« '>laiiitlff. ^i^se-iu^tly, ©n 
B«9«al»t7 IStii aM B4tfe siiBil.%^ l©tttr« ««3f»:^ stmt ts He© hf %m 
pXskintittf ta mmeh tlm @tt«iitt©ii of tn® aefss^^-st, .««© FaeJtlsg 
^fti^pmii^, wa® ©ril»a t© th« si»6 fejr tJi® ief©B#.«.»t of th® %md#- 
aarjt ajadi tffaa* mit« •Heal.*' mn& the dsslga s® tli® p?i«l;iag- h&s.B9 
tljatt ««Jre uiie«S toy tk« plaintiff la this aetios, Oe '^-*»eaiisb@t 7, 
XS37, th®«« proo«sdl®gs «@r® lastltut^d by, th# plsiatlff, «fhieh 
tottght aa iBjimetlea %M aa aeooamtisf @f profits am^ teaag««. 
As «« teira al;r«aay ln^ieatM, ths aiattfi- m,n ife®aM by a mst«x 
ia efeaacefy, ai^ th« trial ©@urt upJitl* the rtpoTt ©f tlm im&ti&T 
and «iatQ:red th« d«<wr«€! fjpo® wklc^ tMs appeal ^« t?sSt«a. 

^vt tfee feaaxlisgft fe»f®ar0 tb.® B5s,st©ir ©©naldemtels t®®tlai©jgf 
m.n taken. fh« tgatlmosy relatiiu;: to thg histexle te®igS:irMiiiid of 
iik9 two eoiapaiiiat la set fortli ©bova sM «lll aot b« fttTtber 
revie»e«i h«T«, tti» ttetlaoay yelstlng to siibntoment ©ureat? in 
r®vl«*«d li«»®, »0t witb tfeferea©« t© its ardar ©f ■0y«t«satatl0iai 
bat with ref<iT«iwe to tb© i^^roiiol^tiG^l 8easi«ad« of tb« mmts 
tbftr«by r«Itt«d. 

tbt e©urt to 4ts ditore© ?»erp©tuffllly «ai«»is«a tbe def6a<l- 
aats f»0iK tb® us® of t^.->« w©rd« "fteal FrsiWEfuarttr®* .ta« *'B®al P%®ii« 
li^ Oeapasy," apps^rontly nmn the ba^ic pr«ffiis5®, whieb tbe aefena- 
lUSits 0tat© tb.«y isrlll 8ub8®*9uently sbow is comtif'^^ry to t!i« matbOTi- 
ti««, thmt tb« plaiBtlff fed »«mMr«a «ofls« soft of sa earelwsiTe 
ri^t t© the use of tb« d«seriptlve wora "Aftal," aM tb« d#f®iia- 
a,.iit0 eit® In support of tk«ir theory the oa.se of eaa4^o^ Stt&ft t Oo. 
V. D«Q3f & go. > &ft iU* 4^* fli« plaintiff, Qmte & Oo., 



s 

««ft^MvoK tit fr'^.t vxat^qs »i tmA ,»tMift«iC! h*9% •#! X9\ •c««JUt 
vdt Affji *Xi^ »l^«iYf hn» txeah-m^Ptt mAt \^i9iu tmlB^t 

.&s 10 stol &«'» «r^l«(«»£! «^*»«-«&i««^ «letfPl •xl# •#«#llU tM AIM* 

giti ^ »f;t tc aoi#m##s •A^ HiJMfw ni ,ni#al«J^[ 

-•Ai^^ e arff ttf •«ir tilt o# tfttm %m ^iifutepmo 

,r to<fise9«'; aO .noi^Ofl »iif# ftl YtltoliUt^ tfC^ ftf »#«i> sit* #«tf# 
jfaxiiv «ttitai<''i<:; M(t %i b^tutiimal afw tyUh^mwrnti ••MET ,TSfi 

?«#«£« e t<^ fetJE^s^ ptm r^ttrm Mit ,&«#«eltel ^Mftls •▼of •« tA 

to Bnij(rt,^«)'3o alio^^aiil ««i# of !3nit«X9's ti'OsltiM^^ «fT .MisUit Mm 

^iiolif^ia^mxc to tubto eti o# •tMB»T«t«t iftlv t^a ^^fd fietsims 
atiNiTe »id[t to 9da»jtr^s X»«i'^Xoff<)<Tito t/ft «i^ fti«»inrl»n iSfirv «if«r 

-diic;:!. erit ??f)iSj:o&ce '{iX;/ -'-.'•■ efno#5 at* iii ttiwo 9Sl7 
-jteff^ Xi?©?:'' Sa<? *st9tiuwt^BljsT*r X-?©»* ttM»« et^t t« •«» «if# »•« Ktee 
-4^s«t»& txl^ ifeiilf ,9»ZK»7qr •lB«<t •{fl iio<^ tXta*««?<tc *(tjCij(9iMlO lal 

oXitOfftXfs •.'fjf '^ ' ^tjsoo »JL ireiKs tXfs»«r>««<f£rfi IXlw t«** OfwN »tSii 

»tr|8U|0«6- .» --*' «»B0« *»«»?>«« S*ff tti^^fflftXij 4w^t *«?!# ^Mit 

^tootftfo tift h&^ «. ' Mdw •irit<7iT»sk£> •rft to Mwr o/ff ot MM^ 

...y 1 fi = >' . ■■^«feae2 to ^viiao oxC* xte«^i^ Ti«bifjf to *^9tfxi^ at tiM »t«.s 



4 

fe&d for S0«« eight tea ye--'*r«, msjmtmetwt-iA BnA sold ple«e whieh it 

had stexiQlleS on the hiidles ** ©«sr® & G©,» In 9 circular line, 

with •isellne, Illinois" git«nell*sd iaad«rs€??ti in a atralght line. 

It had ale© dvertlatd Its plewtB fey elrmjl^r, eat?tl©?u©, ®te, 

f©r msay y@aj>e as th« "Holl&tt Plo«*. ^t the trl??! th« court 

entered a <Secrs« finding toy the pl--jintfffs nnd that th« jslaln- 

tiffs wese antltled to the sTclualTe use, as a tTa.-'?«-iaarft, la 

the nsjmifactur© and sale of |»l0%«, ©f -^e wortSa "Melins :-'1g«,* 

tegcriher »lth other oharscters ajad flguarss which the cou»t held 

were used by the plaintiff In Its ^elnes«K, 

the iuprMW Court in Its opinloa written by Mr, ^ur tlee 

Breese, reversed the aecT«si dle^oltring the Injunction and die- 

Kissing the suit, suftd In speaklii|: of the right to use serda, 

Btarte or ether devlees, th« eo*Ayt Interpreting the ^otAb tn^it were 

used, fj-'^ldj 

"Thers is, obvlonRly, no f-ood reason *hy one person 
should hr.ve ^ny fcett^ssr rlg-ht to use thota than .-laethex. 
They iii^'.y be used by aiaay different persons, at the same 
time, in tnelr blends, stark® or ln.bQls en their rsspe©- 
tlYs roorJs, *lth psrfeet truth and f!:!lrnesf5. They 
ilgnlfy nothlnf;., ^hen frtirly Interpreted, by which any 
dealer in a similar article would he defrauded,* 

aad the defend nte upon this jienersl ausetlen site the case of 
fi^'L&acer v. PetersOEi. 136 111. ?1§. 

The pl"intiff«B reply t© the eontentlOB ©f the defendant* 
is that defend -vnts* argument Is apparently bs.sed upon the theory 
that if defendante ean oloai theaiselvas with the subterfuire ©f a 
phTs-se known a® *de«crlptlve words," they will be free to engage 
In any and fill ».cte of latitat ion and uafalir oompetltloi* and plain- 
tiff la ^Itijout n remedy to proteet Itself froa the unfsvlx practice 
of these def ?ndp<nts. ^nd further msweriim call this Court's 
fttt.ntion to the position assumed by the defendants ss being 00a- 
tra. IT to the !!mthorltl«9 applicable t© the oaso at bar, for under 
the law and under the facte the plaintiff h^s the right to hare its 
nane sx^ label protected fro® the laiitatior, and unfnlr ©ompetltlon 



.0. 3iio x^ «a?o ' ■ .' • . 

«8i)t0ff •§» •# fitB^^ *^ "l^o i^i«»qa a4; tMM ^ttvn exit ^iaeJUi 

X^eM^ •!!# noQe h««»tf t^toft ta»«»!!j»« 's*^' -^ 

ti^t^Mo sldt ilJW sail**' tirt ftn .* "l© 

t#i 0vmi \->iui ib£i« wi^I a^i^^ 



B 

Kfcire Cl6>. SSB III. .ivp-., 2®s, ^h®ip@ %him 0©wyt sai^i 

«M0je«3«ver, eireii if tb.® w0rtr= eould sropeTly be con- 
si4®:r@d as so ^m^otlptir^f th^t fa.«t wovld net Justify 
tlMS dsesBtive us© fey athei'a &f the ■soTas, or similar on^s, 
iB tmf&lr tr;>.o« eoiapetltlon i^@y^ '^safuslon in ths feiiad® of 
pttreims®yg '*©ml^ result. In PeLoiig Hook ^ :;ys rp . v, Hh»d 
■-""'""•■"^ '^-" i> ce>> ^«7 ill. SSi; Im, " it is' itSIj • '--hara^ 



HBasaaifacturer oy saercteut H-*.?i wsed s tS'-vrk, word oy plaras.® te 

eit«ii a w^-^y timt It im® feaedat ititmtlfi^d with 'hi© busiag^ss 

aM the .t,y%iei®s tyi hin asamifactiji'e, .aaothear »tH imt fe@ 

ptisiittei to uisi! tin® »asa@ m„3pk, ^@3m or p&rast so as %o 

ttie fsam®^. fhli rule s-vplit® svta tioouii^Ji the ioM, sajit 
©r f^b^ase lysd^r -^hleto th@ yc^prntatton of the 2g®yeli-4.itt ©if 
ffl^aafacturei' has? bean aeqwijpe-i la * * ♦ lasr^ifly dsocrl-stiv® - 
of tha eha?s.ete3P ©y cru^^aity ©f th» 'irtielaa * * *, 'fh® 
cu®3tio}-s is 0ii@ of CQasssoR fe©a@sty, aad th® oourts re^mlre 
the 0bg0rvsaii©€ "^^f mi«^ n st^.Mard as ^tXl pifoteet the 'btjus- 
taess, tlie «irlc®t aad the repot a ties of a jStaler ag^laat 
stll aot» which tQBd to aeoti^e tSi® p'Ublic into feeilsi'eing that 
the goods af aaothsr ars his goods s-ud to pass th©® off a.s 
«U(d&* A asrely de: srlptiT© tent * * * may hav-? bseoa.® s® 
a» "ieMeiatad with m p-ii»tioular ktnA of gt>©^s or the pyo<S«ct 
9t & pn.Tt%(ml^t m-amifaetur^y iE su^^ a «ay that aierely 
■ att3.«iii»|i: th® W0rd to aa artl©l© #f tit® sinme klM wtuli 
maomi,t to a 8Bi«»«pr®#«»'tatio» st® to %tm ofigim of th« 
article. * * " •, 

mwA it app«««« fro® tlMi suggestion offered fey the pl^-jintiff that 

the ief'S^s.jits cowusmAat that t!fci« &i«e *»^1 Frank fart ere ♦• is use:^ 

to denote the jsarlleuliftr fr^alcurtere of this ©©(ssplaia^iat; ai^ 

that the defsadaate further eoaoede that plaintiff htt.n uses! the 

aaae "Real* 0©BtlatKm«ly for t period of m&t% than nimetees year® 

te Iftesitlf^ Its pro#)»»te, mad that this tmmf hB» h&mm& $o mttaelite^' 

t© ti»e foods of t^e fle.ijitiff that wJb«» the ^asw *ll«@l* is applied 

the gooda %ye ideatifie-a aa the wrodacte of the piaiiatlff^ asd tiat 

the defsndaste farther oar.eede the followiaij to fee true in their 

aareer to the plst?itiff» 

"(B) Ustat tey restsOB of the lon^f experisaoe a^nd great 

©are of t:ie plaintiff ia its s-sid isuslaess, s^nd the 
good !-?uftlltiy" of a-ild ♦Be.^tl Fraskfurters* b.M •"■'.e©! 
Ssms^ges,* the same have beoone widely krio«a in the 
©Offlaismity; * • • aad that said produet has -aeouirad a 
hi,g^ rtputatioss " ♦ ••• 

"(7) That said proditot is tooim to the pifeiic ^ti^ 
to the huyere *ind o©BS«B«sr® thar^of^ hy the naiaes rf 



( 



IftiPtB ttsfOP 9tAt #l»rtw ,»iie .IT* •XXJ 53S .,»> »a«i[4 

■ -jwat ft- 



'^;? s. 
to af 

•111 . - 

•tir'«T 85- 

"Iff ftf T 

?^Ooj to taU> 

<! at d»st9 tii xn'iuTt^liMsj^ t^^jj 
BdS to oloJt^Te OA o# b%9m %t: 

••.•lol^" 

f£rf;f l^lfalrJEq Sift ttf ttiratto aoitsrst^fjliH oift flsott MWV^a ti tea 

6«*«r al *tica:mnr2i'Q.r^ ^atri^ sif; tfoif «te»iioo «fir«ta4vt«6 tiff 

1^ ;;rr: 9 «i^f ^c rxift^Ttialnnrt ffUtifOilitJtt; %ti$ •$9a»b •# 

dxlJt I^otir •8i)S, yXitninlq tstdt »&»oneo YOii^nit ilVjpfidotaA %di fuAi 

9tm% ototoolA ofidt ft^OK to i^oi^tx? ^ %ot xXurti«iai#aoo *X«o&* tnur 

r)«do/<;^}« 00 •UBCcooor o«d oo^a oiitt 9Mf# ha» ^atoiif>otq 3.tJt tti^ooAi o# 

tmit has. ^WitaiBSfi wA$ to ft#o«{K>ta *(C# ti« bdltitae&X •«« cbooa •" 
Yloii^ oi fjni Oil c^ ^woIXat oilt tteOTO)? ti^Atijft. s^axdbaetofe ojff 

' jsXti 9&f ot TOtnUBUI 

* /IT {S)«» 

'?r »».co 

£ v>u.%Jti/(30s «Bd[ foutoiq SUJi'i i£ijli ItOxi) ' ' ' i \^ i ttiiim09 



!mb fi^ildsjq 9Ai et txwxiwi mi i^Ojcrf^^yxq htm taAt (t)^ 



aai tx«.-'® ii«e as ghmm fey 'liKliitelt 4« Ji®if«t© atta^sS.' 



■1© tTmt it ^*ali smm, lis a jstamii's, tMt tlse defenSaata :b^v« 

.&deiltt»4 t!i« as® l>F tla« plaintiff ^f tist woMs th.^t ar« tfe« 

j©ct of this ©©fitro^eysy, ajsiS farfeli©^, in the case ©f latgartrntlga -^l 

e?tol%tijia nasa.^ 194 111. IM, tli® ##U3ft ^p9E a like mi«stt®,B mMt 

»'%il® It is %na® that iem«s:rie tajJus oar m@rf! aes^slptif^ 

as.rliy suQctptifel® ®f a^ysp^iatloiv fey sja iaaivitosi, tlij* 
faet will not pf«T@Bt th# l@rala=r ©f asi iBlunctloa feo r^* 
©ti^.is tlia ««« of such term® a»d w©y??@ at the suit of oa® 
«ii® h»s silrearjy adopted tli(^, where the evidsace sJi©«« a fr%mfl* 
ales^ defiga snd th?t tim 'pufelie ^iU b« fflisXea," 

•?fe« court's mttSDtion k^.s btaa eall«^ to the opinlMj ©f 

tJje Supya«e €ourt in the e&3« ©f ||^^.„ Mcn#t . il>M ;"ef|tft0yy h^m.. v. 
Tht,..J@i....i@mi» Hope o»@t^ry ^mn.^ MB 111, 4ie, ^;h,ejrein the 0®un 
ap:r>s?©v«<I sn in^miotioja to reatysia th© dafsa^aat fTom \xmi^ th« 
arimj *fhi8 Ms« MouBt ii«^« Cemetery Association,* th« mjm infTiBgr- 
iag upo© th« Diaiie of •"m« Motsat Hop® Ge»»t«fy A»so©iatiam « ciSi 
in tht case of >M^ ^ayts C^iB|?mi„ v« my^rgtfjp, ot„.^l;^^ SU 111. 
App. 436^ thia «mirl h«ld th« mm» 4mto Parts %s^ Ulm Oo^p^^ 
t© eesstitut© uafnlT eofspstitloa t© tlss ©©tsplnittsnt Auto Parts 
CoBpaay, although both ii0.m9B ar« puraly dsaoTiptiv®. Thei-e the 
o-®as*t amijls 



*'^il«' ia^a«fi whi^Ji %r@ fr'e«<8xi0 teres ot merely da^erip- 
tiiro *y® tli« ceawaaoB property of f e pufcll®, ai^ a, p3fiimt# 
py©©®rty i»tey®st tiiertia caaaot to« aorfuiredl, neverfehelast, 
th« eourte will frsiat relief whey© % Kta»a of this feiaa ha-e 
to««o ^itlopted widix otreuaetaaeet «M0h amke it apaesir th-it 
th« pu-Aos® of a.d.©ptl3».? euoh n^,$sm was to ®icle^4 ih« gaaat- 

Jii fivjtt Bope gftaietery k^m. Me 111, 411. Ob« 0a».aet use 
»ir@a hisi mm name is ftti«& a iB35.»Etr ss to S«o«lir«, 
|ll0|mti Jlt^i^^. T. AiXQ|^^^^t,i c^<^?i^t^,ejEg^ ^'^^CT, 

•« isth«ir ttom th» snitheritig® tMt hiirs te««a mttomittM 
th« rul© i® ti»t gei9.®3f4o teya» of aeacrlptiw w©,rd» ay«s th» 
flMMttkon pTOparty &f tha imblio, ^«Y@Tth@l«@tfry t^k^xe tho g@i&@rio 
tftsiw wr dasefiptlv« »®rd« ax® tiseS aad a.r« ai©pt»dl to mialeaa 
the general laablic aad «u©h a^p^rs froai the evi<!e»0e, the court 



• i 

•^i»e bOS »«i: #s$^ cIsviMr »ilt >o rtJL#AX«^X<r eiir \(f nmtr »xl^ h*tflab» 
i^^irs ;;oijh.??wp •aUX • OMfir ♦«»• aif» ^KX .III *«X ..fl—a giIt«JtTX[9 



• ,1 X ixiv ^xtHm M<* t«Kt Am c 

^?tc|ii»9 8ftXJi« ft«4e ttftf^ ^tvt^ Bmfm iiCt ^Xf^ff Hff<9» »i^t «M^ «f«A 

<s «» n-- :»;i«^ •«« ItolKIr fNMuw fUJtil'^ 

'/ tttum /torn - lo ••oqviK; Mt 



A 






<mI# ATft tMov •vX^Xv6«»§ «• %A?<3:ci4- 0i««ktf8i tfltrit fcl aX<n ail# 



7 

tNStuld fee justified la taterisi^j- Wt Qitd^T ttmtmtnlm ^^ dief-fB-fent 
la a t3F^P«JP et.st fTom ualag t&t w©rds that as© g»E«3P?2l ia «lba»m©%<ir 
HAd «s«:^ fof th« |>-ttTp@«® of d»©®iviaf the -mifelie. 

'Hiare la a ftsrthar ease thss.* km® ft, bearing upQu -Qie 0u®s- 
tloB te«f©r« this eoarly aai tha-t is tlis e%s® ®f Epyal feaJfeJBf 
Pttg4«ar Com&aay t. I^gi^^. , 1f^ Fed. 3?@. fhe sourt in mf fistsiEf 
th« 03?d«r «a^olaiiig: the iaf^oiaat fr<^ «©iBg the »of^ ^^^jrsl* 
8&ld; 

«fb© word •t^iwl* l8 aot desejelptlYt ®f fea&isg 

pOT^deiP, * * « Snld si'erd Is, in fast, ussfl as a isis.?k 

Aoad whan we eosis to eonsidttr tli« assthoritles, ms wdll as tite 

<diajract«3r of tfea ®0yd« m«ed, w« ai?g ©f tfe« opiaiem tlis-t tls« court 
did aot «»r in »Bt«xisi|r Mm d«c*se, wfe«T® it w%& for ths ptt?i5©s« 
of pyot«©tia?... th« R«al f«©lciag; Cos?|W5iiy fxoffi Imltatioii aad wiXful 
aet« of ttiifalr eorapstltltm by these ^«f«B«3aRts. Tli® cfa«§tioa 
Is largely d«p)«ndaat «poii the pwtrisose for w-leh tJttese woyd« wax-e 
isumd* 

it is the ooat«ation of th« defeadnnts th;?t la th« «a8« 
ftt feat ttee desfead^nts lad la g«»CH? fnith lr»«rweafely afesBdoaad %h,9 
ttse ©f tli« ai?usa.g« ^^ntalaer known as Plnintiff s .£3s4ilteit "B* 
loi^ fe«for# suit w®.8 ttiottght ajBd J*a.<! lj«en dietrlbuttiSf its products 
fxoiu«lv«ly la lt« gir6«s «Bd white ©he^rry brand feox, 

£Ti4«iMM was offered by th® dsfendfjats to the «ff©ct tlvat 
thifi sixiiibtt -sas tw@d ®«ly la eoxu'iection with th© saX« of sau»ag«8 
fxoia g@8«tltte in th« Xatt«r part of 193® up tiatiX May, 1937, sd3,«a 
tlao gpmsa aM s^lte oiierry femmd beat ea.*© out, whleJi aMjidiSifflisBt 
oocurt«»d af>proxlBb%t«ly six aaonths. before these proesedings »er« 
instituted la r»«««ife«r 1937. Howarvax, it apfitsara fr@iB tfe« «vid«Be« 
«f t33.« plaiatlff that iMjtwithetaMlBg this proasiea tfe« dtftsds.at© 
coBtiawed to s«ll fraaltfuJ'teTe uad«r th© slMolat®^ Is-feel - FlaistlfiRt 
Kxhifelt S, ffefx-s 1« «iri«!«mc;e timt after May, 1037 th® dofimaanta 



I Mm 

HBtXi^vq tiiti tot arv ti oit«4v ,d9^o«ft ftift 9ai««#a» ni tx^ foa hib 

Xirtiiw ftOjQ aoitntJtml woitt xiBitHqfaseC tiCtXie«t*l Xmi^ •!(# jio^#lM»^o>7«r t« 

..oltsMip ex(T .«#a<r^fl»t6& •dftift x*^ aoltltnqmoo tiiirtatr to af«j 

»iy« ifrxow werf" :* ' tot »e' it aoqx/ tvubtufti^h v" - ' ni 

•x^MT tovKid ft-xtNEist •tiifir JNw a»«9s s^i at xi^svl3;.Ioxs 

m»dii ,T£^X ,X£M Ut*w ffff ^91 %» #7i^ r^tt»l •Jf# jeI •mI^aoc aott 

tamatebns)0l» iioliVw ,#»• wrco xo<f ftOMScT v^<>^ fttixlv J&is* it»«TB »dit 
aiih9^'tl^ex^ B$»di &t&t9i^ tiHtsicm xls xX9iimlxm.ce^ bs'ituttt^n 

U.tci«i<i » £»<fei b9*£Smmtt «if# tsteir at»tt|^l<«««) XX»ft «»^ai»lfaM 



t 

mlA a ^it«tp«« gmtM® of firs.sJcfttn«3rs maa®r the imltatisa XaMl 

©#e«iib(Mr, 1937 a »ita#«« ®a» fjpankfarfesjpa belRg: e©X« in tli« y«tsll 
fstot^s i«il®r tke imitstloa lab«l of tks plaintiff, m€ tia® mitaejiR 
t«Btifl#^ that h« m.m at tfe« mo Pmtskim- ^mi^^^w ^te«^it i© 'teex,«» 
aSrtadjr p&elu®« ©a t»p of t.Ji« ?a«lts la the ooei^rj that tfe®s® 
3nmaiEf«ur%«3r® w«r® IS &(m%B a povtM, «hil© tli® te.ttt«r gxuS# «m,s 
X9 ««Bt« a ]^0U»4, aiii. th, -re is bIbo th« adffilssisB fey t&@ dsfsnii- 
ants tf^^t. OK ©r abo»t Sov^iab^r 27, 1937, tte* Re® Fae&isiic Oeppaay 
was tt«lfi#- tb« plaintiff 's la-fetl. 

fli0S« p:f€MJ«@iiag© »er@ iiustlttitea on l)e«eabey 7, 1937 
to ftmjoia *-fe«f d«f«iidaat« ff®® lurlher aot® ©f uafal» oaaip®titl©B, 
sad there 1« 8Tld®»©« that «iil^s«fau9ntly to Feteswiry SB, 1938 
th« imlt^.tloR Xfflteel of the ^j^silatiff ^n". s<B-nn in retail stor««, 
fh© dtfasdantj i. 0. f«Hlsii:if»« testift-M that tKw^ ©masM uelag 
the teex about the «ad of Msareh, 1938, beor^use hio attumey had 
aade lua agv««a««t with the attoimay for the plsliitiff to thmt 
effeet, 

3», »hea we ©©nel^ts %il the ®Tld.^fio« that Ims hs«a 
|iyee«at«d hy both sides it appeajra that the ??u©8tlsn is a em^ 
tyoverted one sM that thexe was suffieieat eTldeaee to Justify 
the eourt in entexiaig the decree i& ouestidxi* 

fkere «a.s 0viaeia©e as t© 'srhether «sr a<;>t the .a--i»e« He-^.l 
and Meo »®rt coMfasiag:.. That also «aa a ^ueetiOTs of fS:et, to- 
getlMr with the c»ue«ti©», as t«> how th« wsiil ws.® treat-sd *hea 
it wa.» aiadireotea t® the defsaa^mte. T^kiaf the e^.m M ia 
all the evidlenoe upon which the ©ourt mseed was euffioitnt to 
eaetaia the <ae«3ree ujpoa that -^estioa, 

T^ plaiatiff »«ggegtfi with somewhat mvptim m to the 
<lef«atoats» ooateation, whieh is mXm^ for the first ti»e ia 
this ©oartg thsst the eriiSeaoe diBoXos®-^ aa, abaaaouneat of 
pl©iatifr*e label, bM ealla this G©urb»8 atteatioa t© the f^ot 



• 

—^Oii 09 tv04s tff«!;^i&«0 )jali»&H c^H •/It tA nni Mi fmit kniUttM 

•Milt r4BJi# {%oX«o» tit ml ttfMd t^i t« «t# «« i»wta«ci %bJs$%SM 

•m frfrm^ ««^t«4^ viit •iJtrtw iliiam 4 «#«»• ai 9XMi BXMtu/Uia&tt 

'•btnfk ttfr t^ aci«U«ft8 •«* •■Xa ai •« tU bM «bflMt • •#«•• 91 

dC9X ,S8 \«ju»«d(»^ a* xlia»u9*9^*n iiuU •eotltiT* ■! »t»d# Uut 
•M«e#ft Xie#*« 111 ii»«t r«w ttXtalAXq adf lo X«<f«X noiiedlml a4|^ 
l^aiair Msjsso t*)<^^ ^JBif# tei1ei#'>ei «<}Xi;«q ,#a.<^foad^»6 Aiflr 

had x^avtttM mlfi •ttiiAi9»tf «BedX ,ifBt«M to &s» exf* tcotfe xo6 9dt 

rr d %ssA iMdt Mttt»hkt% ftcf' ~<f>l«a»o ow oftdr «o 

•isei#9»»p «i ••vcHiJb Mft Tffxtv$ta» at Sxuo9 %dt 

«<•# «#»«t to aeitOMrp £ t«ir mX^ #«tfT • joitiitiKM &'t&-» o*>l ftii« 

ixsti? &?>#£«ic# 4i»ff Xlott »d& W0A 00 9a fX9At99uo 9di dtkm X9di9f$ 

nl Xfe »9«o 9dt ysii^f ,9imfha»\9h 9iii o$ HioBribulm nam tJt 

of tx£9l9l>ts« ftp« tmmifBtf tvtm t/<^ ito/iv Aoqfv mnm^Xya eitt Xliii 

,steXf99sn3 tmdf aot^ »9iK99b tifi ai?.t(»Mi 



that thftra is a© aYiS^ae© ia tim reeori mpoa tte«t ouftstiei^, 
flie ^]I8««7 t© tMt tj8> t&« asf«afe»%s did state in tk«iT byi«f». 
tkst %h»w€ wm© aa afe^mdoaptBt, ii^i<sh is in effset aa a^^lssioB 
that tlwgr haS b«^ usi|« tb« plaintiff's iafeal, s© tfet m »« 
gather far©® th« recorti, tha dgfsaiSastg seek t© avoid tli« a#er®t 
that «&« eBt«»«a in this i^se fey th« rfeat«i«Bt %>lmt thsy ?eally 
h&d al»ma<idii®d th« ttt.® of th« iafe«i. K®ft-OT«3r, th«ir« ia ®Ti««a®« 
that th® Sstaateatffl eeatia^sdi t© ^se it. fhat i® avsa aiiaitt^i 
hy th« <l®feia«laKt i-. t-, PooaaO-p, »&i tsMtr the ei3f«wisstali©-«t there 
is 8o oeeaasioa t© further aa»wsr that suirt^stion, ©xe«pt t© point 
to the reeoyi. 

Dtedor the siroujsgtaaces th« f^laintiff ie entitled to aa 
aocounting of profits ssd dRttn.f-ea, if x^ny, arising emt ^f tho 
tjBiitfttien of its lgi.h«l by th« d«f«sfimsts, aiid it m@ f@r th« 
oouTt to .^©t^rmiae th« <3u«®tlaia fro® the faets, mhl^ it. tlld i&M 
directed that a» ao«otmti2V': of profits aaA iiHKigoai he taJcem., n.M 
nothing hsLB heeo oeIl«4 fo our attsAtiOfi whioh wo^Xd justify at 
reversal of the dioereo Ufion that ground. 

for the reaeous states? i» the oplaioa the deoree is 
affimod. 

Moms &rFiaii.iit), 



<L 



ftffc 4{f»3Ut 9if Msaauilfr taft s^i1r«tQ t« ^jbtUtswM^is tun f^j^ b^:^9(f>iAh 







/ / / / ' / 



Ap'stllaiit. 



A. 500 



ME. JtrsSIOS HSBSL I3ELI?liiS§ THl ©riSIOST yf fSS COIIEHT. 

fhie appaaX l>y the d«f^^gnt Is froa & Judgment ®f guilty lit 
a oi^ieiinal aetion, wherein oa June ;£9« 1839, an luforffl&tioa we^e fiX$d 
In the of flee of the cltrk of the Mimiclpal Cowrt of the Cilty of CSilee-e©, 
file-n«d by on@» A]f>thiir Oarsia«ri &n& tri«S by '&«i eourtf ^wty haTi»t b€r«a 
vaived, la the Hutiioip&l tburt of CSbloagQ. By the judgment, the dtfcod- 
emt vas eent«ao«d to tliie House of Odrr00tion for an« yt&r and to psty a 
floe of one ($1.00) Dollar. 

fh« trial of the defendant wa» on sn informitioa fil«<a In the 
office of the clerk of the K^ualcApsl Court of Cljioago, snd slgaed ani, 
sworo to by ose, /irthur Q&x^ih«r, fhie iBforsiRtion ehfergeA that the de- 
fen^At on the BSrA day of June* 1039, at the Qity of Ohie&e©, «aid mn- 
Ifttrfully, knowingly, »aA wilfully enoourage one willl&» Re«<a» « male 
person under ^e age of eighteen years of tige, t&^^lt, sixteen ymru, 
to beeome a delinquent ohlld, ajtd did then and ther«i unla^wfully «"«« do 
aefte ^leh directly produoed -^^^ and «hlch tended to render the said 
Wllli«» Eeed to be or beeome a dellnc|uent ehlld. In that he, the eald 
CSlerenee w&lker, did then and there expoee his person to the said wlliiiui 
Eeed contrary to th® form of the statute. 

Xn eoaeldtrlng this &p£>eftl, the eridence t^iat was heard by the 
trial oourt Is not In the reeord, so that ve will asBtttM that there wsm 
evidenee to justify the Court's aetlon p»» Tided there wae a eufflolent 
eriffllnal igiarge to justify the oourt in cratering the ju&^ent in question. 

file defendant did not objeot on th# trial of thie aetloa to 
the infoz%atlon as to fora or eubetaaee until on the 2nd day of Oetober* 
19SJ^. Me then mored the eourt to esrpuage the order sad Judgment entered 



/ 



T ■■'Ifr r>*r "K-, 7,-^;:'!: 



ovox» 



^i W / Q :■' . 1 CI 






ib^lJk'i a»w MtQliimii/ u1 ao aimtniiv ^eoJ^/«4 XsaLaitd « 

o^sctlfO to x^-^3 *f^ '^«» «^w«*0 i^7^^x*ii«.-. ^^^ lo X-uXo «ll^ lo •OJttHo 9di Hi 

::;;. "o.^ . 1 ixQisod'i'i •dtf' 0? J^oav^ASB Mir tm 

.'XAiXoa (00. x$) tiu i0 •Ail 

JbAA ' ' ^ L:qloiniSH ntU lo 3tt»Xo wtit to toXlls 

-•A trie- ,'-;'.aJ ^p^^-i^ayj .i^ia tiurtouij. J^xtit •yttiwO tiftitx^ ,»IU> Xf^ Ot Atomi 

-mf bth «»ai»ol(iC to >c}XO tiSr ^« t^9X t^^t'^'^ to v»i> Jb<x&£ ftiia «• 4'aJS^n•t 

ftXMi 4 ,J^««H MiXX' '•''^ »^aiu/oaA» \HsnUv tea «Xisai:v<xut ,x<l^X«ti«aX 

tVtJMX »9ixX% ,}Xv-^ ,x.^ t« anuMX a««^d;iX« ta v^a txt^ i»;&Mi M»vnq 

Qii #•# t^XtftwftXAB «rt«i& bOA e»dt Aift ftoa «ftXUto tmrntpaUmA m •■oe«cr o# 

AXao ta t^bMt o^ £wl)ii«» ildXiJif IMU •*« AM«ft«iK[ XX#««*xlfr dliJLite UfM 

6lAi Mbr ,mC t«it9 at .DXlifo f£W»p<aXX*fo a ••ooed to ta of &»ol! «tXXXX« 

s3>\,^fXiv/ &1.4?. stLt c# Cv9i3c ^M aAoopco o<x»d;r Jtoa a«il tlb ,^cojCX«tf oofloxoXd 

.^ia3&tQ oii^ to anOl •At ot vto^^Aoe ^oA 
«i& ttf ibulMif aav f«i& OOM^ITO •sit «Xaoqqa alift a*^'x«&Xanoo oX 
8«w »a»iit tA^ Ofluftaa XXjN «v jTadf o* «Mg»o'X •ta al tfon cX ttii<« £ai*tt 

. iaX^sotrp 111 tn«B3|ftift •^^ ^lotm a1 ^ujoo ori^ xti^avt at •yi%»rf» XaoXttXmt 
dif acliQ& Blui t» X^XiJ »i£;t at» »o»t«f© *o« ftift itcafiAoto* wfT 
t'SdofatoO to xad MS •dt ao SItau ooimfafifva to arxot 9$ aa ooliTaanotiiX viff 



in the on.«® on the 39th day af June, 1339, for Vm folio^iag ire5.«©n8i 

Afliong other ©bjeetiona he ©oaols^ias th«t %i\^. etoaapXt^lnt st'^t** 

n© «»«.«« ®f a^ottoa or offen«« j*gsiiinet the people of the St^te of Illinois* 

snd further th^t under the st*itwt<*8 &f the ft«te of Iliinois, the ««»t« 

constituting the eriaw ©f ^linouenoy are gpeoialiy ae fined, and that 

the ei>urt w«?a trithout Jurisdiotion in the alijove »ention«d s®«tter te enter 

the senteaee ifflpossd on the defeadmnt, fbis action of the defendant w»e 

denied, 90 thnt the question srisea as to the euffieienoy ©f the inforai^- 

tlon in th t it f'lils to oh»rge g eriae in the iangusig« &ad teraa ©f 

the atstute, and th st the court wx& iu error when it entered the judgiscnt* 

Umler the statutes in ejuestion it is necessary th^*t there be a 

charge thit the defendant nrroagfully nnci unlawfully eoatrifeuted to 

eoaditlcoe th^t rendered the child delineuent, in th- 1 the deffnd*nt did 

then And th^^re tiaJce smi expose his person in the manner of the ceaplaint. 

One of the Ofises of thie court that ha« passed u?^n a like 

cni^stion ie the op,ae of the ?e(>;D3L,e of the St^te of lllinoS.a ▼. ^^-fehiyy^ 

yallRoe. 185 111, App. 213, in which this court 9*'.id "the Judgtiwiat i« 

sought to he reversed upon ftseigamenta that error 'm» eoawitted by the 

court in overruling the action of the defendant to quesh the information, 

ftnd «l«o the motion in %rreat of judgment," the court furths^r said thwt 

Robert 'sallaoe, on lebruary XB, 1932, u* ohnrged in the eoaolaint did 

"unlawfully, wilfully and kno-»lngly encourage, aid, oauae, ahet and 
connive nx the delin(|uenoy of one i)oreathy Hochenhusch, m minor 
fea«.l© child under the -ge of 18 ye «rs, to-wlt, 16 yenre,* 

The Court further eaye; 

"that portion of the inforaetlon ending with the v!tit<is, »16 ye^rs*, 
chargee ?\ orime in the langunge of the strntute. The r^ga»lning 
portion should be regBrded ns surpluange. In our opinion 'the n^iture 
of the offense*, ra ®et forth, 'fflay be esaiiy understoi^,* «nd 
eeotion 6 of division II of the ariasinHl Code p.ppiles.^ 

1% addition to the ease Just qruoted, th«r« h^s been called to 

the attention of thie court, the CT^tse of People v, Jof cplji Haaf Itop. 

Ill* App. 641, sind in this ease the court held that the infora^tion 



f 

inaattf'^t ^tmollo\ ^4^ vol «e£6X «Mtul. !:• ^Mb <C#6S •ill «o »«ii9 •!(# ai 

««ioaiXXX to •#«#& Ml^r to •Xq«#q *iit t»atf'-^» •aaollo :io aol#»i!i t« ••jomo •« 

•^r ,jloflXXXX to tt^nirs ftd^ Ic loli/leta wAt ttbou #«tf# T»tf#«trt Haa 

ttidt haB ^b%ail\9t "iX^aiosqt irts x^attuxaiti^b \o twlTa sd^ 9aX#ir#ilQae9 

t«#iT« of T«#^iaB Atfloi^ik^ »Ybd« %dt at uoiiolbBl'tui iuoAUti »•« truoo nAt 

e^fw tii3^ftl»2) ftit# tft noitMi tldT •^aRha>t«fe vtft if btt%^mi ftM»^»« •!!# 

-MYOlcl 6<Ct t« tt>''^»ism0» Sift «f «i ■••ivn notttwp «dt i.^ift «• ,69Xii»t 

bXb fBsba'^^mh ulf ff^df fli ^fay tltdtt 9df I^tr9bm9t fpdf Moifit^oo 

^falGlqmoo •dt to x»immm •dt dl •••isq %id ••wpf tee mdet •tvdf bat^ tt9dt 

»iXI M do^n b*mt(m BPtA ff^df rrtrco vttff te ••mo %dt Yn taO 

#<»tfoH .▼ tionXXil to ^ to »XcyS tif^ U ••*^t» Oif* Si flOlJhroop 

ti #«Mi8t«rt ^'* '^^ ' **^^ d9idw at ,SX8 .({CA .XII flSX «JBliflBit 

•<* X«f l>»3rfl««oo •'^'i^ toire« *p<f# oterMMiliior floqtf b»ot»r»t •d ot trfgirti* 

«aoi^i!«YOtixl 9df dt»J;/p o# *ai?tJ»t9fc odf to aoitoM mdf ^ttlarfr^ro ttt fitwoo 

tudf htM» tl^^ttJt ttuo9 ^r ••#n«#i|fcot 1« #•»«» Bi ftoi#oaf ndf mX* bite 

fcXl> fdt&tqaon •<!# «1 fiftSTUirfO •< ,8WI «ti r«*«»<*** ■« .♦•«XX^ #»«doJt 

^no to , 

•*,a'* i^ vi ^iZ,V-QJ «£t ©t W to P.J ' •''VJ Tii-'fTo ;..<;r.v; wX-jjbct: 

iBXf^s Yflfftnrx/t ttifoO otfT 

•e««9Y 6i» ,8X- ^* — ^-rrriodt to flol^ro<r t«ifl^* 

jl)(Xai««»n fc '^df «i awXto f? ««8Tflrfo 

■ »8 •?I.i'^'-. ■^ - :,i:,.iT . rtcjj i ci ki. tio ir J.'/ ic tO O ii>*u^--9 

07 CrBil-n n«»«r tlWf tfrii ^i.'-:^OUp ttUli ••«• •<!* Ot ffOl*lM « fll 



3 

Qbiurgc w&ft 1» the Xaaguag* of th« stg^tiite. fh« inforsi0;tii»a th«p« elmygeS 

thst tli« <l«f eadant 

"•did malfiivfully, kuowingly aad vllftaiy eaeourag^ Aaax'ty sadi Shirley 
Ulrieh* a female jpersen imd®p tii& a^e of 18 j«ara, to~wlt, 9 years 
6S& 3 y0.e.re of &fee to be or to >5e<s>m.€ s 4el|jiqu«iit cMld »ii^ &1& 
tiien aad thsr® uiilai?fully, l.«©wiagl3f sad ■^■llfully ec? ®,0tB yliieli dt- 
x^etly j^rodueedf proa&ttd. and contributes to c^^Mltioag vkieh t€»iid<»d 
to r^B&mt @aM Audrey mn^ ^Irley Ulriete t© b© &r t© fe«0oi8« a a®llii~ 
^fiRt efoiia In tMt he, the @B.i& Jo6^3i HaaHton Sid t£^e lnS$@€i&t 
llto«i»ti«« wltl^ tht ««1<S Audrey ana Shirley Ulrieli In IiIb nf&asly store 
ldeftti«d »% 5504 Wabfixisia &M cau€@ th« said Audrey m&d mirley Ul- 
ricas t© eo«sit iiid«e«nt and lasoivious ®«ts, ooutrary to th© fosw 
©f the ffte*.trttt«...* 

further in its 9pini06« tibe eourt ealS that 

"the infona&tiea is euffleieBt *rhi©h states the offenst in the t«f«« 
as4 Is^afttac® o^ ^J^e st.fflf.t«te ©r®atlni?; the offeuse, sr s© plaialy tati&t 
the nature of the offenes jsay ]p>« easily yiiKSerstood. l-e o;^le v. Seat* ' 
tttra, 83© 111, ."as J atroha v. rmfXfi 160 111, &agi U>eto v. fe©©le , 
l32 'ill. &04; seme o rd Y«'" '|ep;^l'e » i^'l 111. 623; Filler y. £ ^ f«a.pXe I 
®2 111. ia2{ yyg|?Ie' V. Waila©@ >' 180 Xll. A]pp. giS. Tke infarafetleia 
«rafl eube taat ial'ly In the Ta&0M|e of tSie statute and entirely euffl- 
©ieat to i^tify th# defesdaat of the ti&ture of th® offense with wMeh 
he irae otmji^ed.'' 

Under the pyorlsioas of ^^is Statute, provided for ia far. 104, 

fee. 2, entitled "Origs,iaal OoGei** £>mitli-f?urd Rev. Stat. Id3&, aiwl ee- 

peeieCLly frosi the provieions that 

"•Aay pereott who ^all ktioiiringly or %?ilfully ©aitee euad ©r eneourage aay 

sftle uad.er the age of eereateeti (1?) yesr«! or any f<msXe uM$r the 
a^e of ei^iteen {!&) yesTE t© be or %o t/eosme & delinqu^t diild. a« 
defined in seetion one (1) ^'^^ &hsJLl be guilty of the ©riae ©f ©©n» 
trilmtlng to the delinqueaey af ©hildren, . , , •* 

eifpeeially whem it ie prortA^ in par. 102, gee. 1, 

•«r Inaueiag or eiaeoursging the use of vile, ol>«oeae, vulgar* profane 
or indeceat langusge 1b any public place or about any s^oIjo©! h©use; 

©r is 4?uilty &t in^lecenit or l9.®civious ©oMuet."* 

Tim tefendant ©alls th.e ©ourt'i attention to the fm©t timt thie 
iaf©rsi&.tion d©ee not epeeifieslly ©harge ©r allefi© any offense v^lsii 
wouM @sste within Ohapttio' a@, ieetian 100, of the Illinoie ^tat© lar 
Aesoeiati©!! 3tatute» teith-Hurd, 4«te.pter 3©, seatlon 104, &n& t^st the 
infomatien ©Marfee that he eiepoeeS hie peraon t© sais William EeeS, 
whiefa act tmul<s not neeeeaarily "te^ «* ©rlsiinal effenee in the afeeenee ©f 
aSditionel eircuastuiees n^t alleged in the inf©nAati©n, Emuffmr, it^ile 
there is a© authority ©f a ©ourt ©f laat mmQV^ in tkiU state, hs-vin^^ 
passed ©a a like «|u©sti©a, in the ©aae of l^eople v, Krata » 230 Mieh. 3M, 



wj.'r :^ Mtf, -ft^irA Mai ^mm at 

'.■dt (Ml lad^ lU bJJjto ta»sfD 
$^'^ n« \9'antk biM9 •rf9 Atlv tol;rn;»tfiX 

*...•*«» js^» Oii;^ to 
nana* «rft ni 'I'^n^Jf^ *-<? »<^?.**« doixiv 9a»i«Xlltfi »4 4l«i^««it«tai tdv •'• 







aoimnt": ,:si « 4oiXX«w .v t fco»i 'i3CX .xix ^ 



V iv anolaivoTKi ftdS wnd^X xXX«i«#< 



-«©« Ikft t«i:-T* ■ --fv .r-^-v (/} 



vi; Si 



*rt. . ., ^ K ri .. ;■ !>•».■.: 



(i. .<!>> .^lA^ oX iMUblrrs; aX dX luuiv ^JU»i»*fiii^ 

atjdit t«di^ y«st miJ oS atdUmnrttM u*wvim t;9 ttXJjut itmjUtai$\»£i mt 

ludS tttf^fi:?: XI «ai# Ito ,00X iiaX^ttC^ «3S '«»lfq£dO ;: «ar 

•lit t4uli^ bam «jN>i floitrtkdJi ,&' >oaaA 

•XXfitf «TBT»voH .aoX^isot&loi 9jtU iiX >i9a$^ij» 7a« *ppi»tuutotJ» Isinolflbbt^ 
lielTMt ,«t&^B •X£G3f &1 ttm^v i%Al to ;hcif«> » to Ytli<Ml}aB on sX •t&sit 
^i&i .a»JM OOS t£2SSl «▼ »Xgc»< t« MUM Mf# til taolfmp •MJLl a ao *•«••« 



4 

the oourt iM its oplsi&B salds 

*iatd«««nt *ae Qbsoend csEpoeure of th« p«riioft* ie the txIxibitloB of 
thft8« private parts of tfet pergos wbi^ai laetinetive laodeity, tottaaii 
d«eeney or n&turaX self-rftspeot resuires ©hall b« c«0tom&rlly kept 
covered In the pr®8®nce of others." 

fh« <ivie.ene« not havifsig b#«a pr«s©rTM In the ree#r€ b«for« 
thl« ©ourt, w« iw'lll pres««« that ti3«re wss ©iif flelent evidenee t© 
justify the ©ourt In «iiterli^' tht- iw&i^mM, 'se believe tSist «p#s th« 
recsord bef©r« this eourt, t3i« «fflurt Sid s©t «rr lis fiaAiag tkm de- 
fendant guilty sjsd flxijs^ the punlateie^t. 

fvap the reasons stated , the ju4g@ent la ftffircie&* 

jyPFlHKSO. 



DENIS S. ;jULLIVA«, r.J., 
BURKS, ^, UDMCiUH. 



an4 















>ed siiS^ ^Ihalt tit -n« Im ^U» i%ttm» •!&» ,911109 «lrff •iet«tf Moesn 



tiR^ %»U» 



4iaoo 

HARRY 'OOHEiS, OYKUS »,/0X.30ti y%ld 
ETHEL .a. 01^0^, liis/wife./ii;./-^ 

jl§;tS 8. ^im>W, /s Reoaave/ in > 
No. S.'^-38ia, '^■Erffrior :;4il*^cff "^eo 
County, Illinois, «nd "llMiowi 

Oa Appeal of MAaHT OOHSli, 

Otfeadant - <Vp^p«ilftBt, 




XiTil^LOSOTORy AFPSO. 



stjpi RioR Qoism 



coot oooirfT. 



05I.A. 501 



Tbia is as appeal by tfee defendmat froa &a lat^rloeutory order 
entered oa J^auary 25, I940« en plaintiff 's v«rifi«d petition filed 
in a suit to foreelo«« n ;junior tra&t deed ^nd siting for tlie 
appointment of - receiver for the preaiaes deeeribed in tke plnintlffS 
eomplnint. ^o this petition, defendant, H^rrjr Oohen, the owner of the 
equity of redesaptioa filed n verified answer, Fro« all allegations 
in the ooaplaiint, it Bope^rs th>t the p^intiff is the oimer of a 
Junior aortgni^* se«uviag »m indehtedneaa in the prinoip<tl sus of 
fourteen thouanad rive Hundred (i|14,&X>.00) fcteilare, the unpsjld 
b^lanoe of i?hioh is in the sua of Thirteen Thouennd Hlne FHindred 
('^1:5,900.00) .Dollars and hec««e entirely d«e on Movember 1, 1931, ''?hen 
plaintiff filed his oo«pii«int to foreclose the •artgfe.ge in this Ofs<se, 
Intfrest had aoorued on a?'id prlnoipal bsl«ioe to the extent of Eleven 
Thousand >ive Hundred Fifty %nd 78/100 (111,5^.78) OolUrs, thus 
i^ggreg'itlBg a total indebtedness of T»enty five Thouss^snd lour Hundred 
Fifty and 78/100 ($35, 450,78) Dollars, A first aiortg^-^re encui»bering 
the premises had been for«olos«d ind a decree of foreclosure And rsale 
St?. a entered by the court, pursuant to whioh «;^e wrs hs»d on October 
2b, 1938, for Twenty One fhou«.5nd(|ai,D00,00) Ooll?*re. On Ootober 2S, 
1339, plaintiff redeeoed froa miA mX« and paid the >4*tster in ahancery 
i^ho aade the sale the nam of Twenty isur Thousand liiae ihindred Sixty 



OOSIi^ 



I 
( 






\\ 



TtA© -re: 

■J- bar . 



to?. .A. I S0 8j .« . >«i^..«o 

:'.• sm -30 MOW ISO »»? «:\>43rvia;a:; xji^su joitsuw .-i^ 

fW^ aeim^ b«iliy«T t*t^itaifilc no «OMII 4)8 x^muan^ m Jb«i«^a* 

9dt Tot s^tlifi l^i« fi^tt) t»tni toiaisi e nwelofttoH ot tiu9 m ul 

0*)li^nii!>Xc[ »if.t ttl fc»tflT9«9fi •••la*T0 •lit Tot i97i»ft*t f« lo #ii»s#«jtoqq.e 

W!ol^«8*-ti« XI«( aeill •'x»««ii/' t«njty»T << btlit aol#q«*t}«t lo tiii/}»* 

» to TMfTo •Iff ai \tlfmimiq %6t frMi uxfqqn $A «#iii«Xq««o Bdi nt 

to Mm loqiofiliq ftdt 01 ••«a6«##»lteti an T/filxym •f^K^tvm X9lau^ 

bl»qtta •at ««tAlXoQ (00«00a«Ml) b»tl>furfl flrlt teitaoodT a«s#Tuot 

f»»TlbfititT «ail iMBSuoiiT ii»»^ii(T to ■»• •!(# Ai ti lioiifv to MiaalAtf 

«dv;ite ulAf ml 9^ftfitrom ^t t»«X9»T«t ot taJteiqttoo aid I^aiit ttl^aialq 

aw9l% to tantr^ ^At o* fUMLMl'^.'S Xaqioflitq tlsn no j^aavaOR bmf #«tT3liiX 

aff(f# «cT<^iIoC (8T.0da,Xi|) OOXXar bai' x^lY baTteufl aviY basmydl 

bfnbaun twol 6fl{>auoi(t avii t#o«wT to asMiiaMabtfli Xj»#o# « a«i#i*ioiC3»« 

8alT»«f«tfOaa a^.^StToaB fstit A .ciaXXoO (8T«{KI^«dS$) (y\X\8T baa x^tii 

•X«a Mr aitjimoiosvot to •avoafc » ban l>«0oX»»xot flaatf £«!( taaioatq 9dS 

TttfotoO Ao ti>d ftJTs al^e tfoXifw ot ifA«ira<uiq «^uoo ad^ Xtf 6aT9#Aa ai*« 

«3S vatfotoO aO .atiiXXoS (OO.OCO«lSt)l!iAeafiorfT aaO t^Aa»T tot «SCSX ,a? 

Xf^andti fli i*la»ii atf* Jbi«q ba- aoit tsaaiaabo:! tti^Alpic ,e«ex 

%4}U^ b^rbaim •mlU. baemtfcdt xmI xta»v'i: to mm ^Ai %lm »Ai atnio otfw 



Six aad 40/100 (134,366,40) i3oll^re, smd reeeived a Oisrtiflo»*t# of 
redetsptisn* 

B^ Ms foreoXoaure, pxsiattff meskn in <s Mitlon t© other 
relief to Md tfe« »oT3leB sxp«nd«d for r© iesption to the aortgf?^ 
indetotedneas, tlie svib^Ject of this f^Teelesure prooeedinga, whieh aaleea 
%. total ind«bt®d.ae8s of lifty thouaaad Four ifendred Sevente^ia and 
18/100 (|S0,4ir.l8) iSoilarg. 

Oynia 3» OXsaa and istiMiri 8* ©i»®n w«rt ackers of both 
««»rtg«^«« iM conveyed th# pr«®i«es in 19S9 to s Tirustee to 8«cmre 
the p?».3rasent8 of '^mounts du« under th« moytgRges, .%i«i, thereafter, did 
not appe r in the oh«':in of title* 

H^rry Cohen, the defendsiat, soQuired title on Deeeaber 5, 
1339, forty diqre lafter the owners rigftt to redeem from the *?iie und»r 
tha firat Mortgage foreeXosure had «3fpired. 

Oa Janw^ry 13, 1940, plsiatiff applied to the oowxt for 

the fippointmeBt of s* He«elv@r baaed upon his verified petition in 

oonjunotion with the coMplaint. The 1& month at?»t\jtory period of 

the 
redeaption fs&a the ssle proviaed for in the deoree i^/ prior foreoioeiare 

oiee m'.a to expire on January 3&, 1940, 9lM the Reoeiver in po98«?!53ion 

of the prfisaises by virtue of the prior proceedings w«a entitled to 

retain pos«(eaalon until th t tXm, Fiaintiff*® aotion ws eontlnued 

until th t tiae, ft vhloh tiae the defend.sBt, without previously giving 

notioe t© the plaintiff, filed an /^nswwr t© plsintiff's .petition, no 

Aaewer h»vlng nt that tiae been filed to the oo«pif»int. 

Plaintiff's verified petition ?tllege» waong other thii^« 

thit Oyrue i^. Olson «%nd Ithel a. Olson, makers of the trust deed and 

Bortgftge are ineolvont ^nd irithout pereon"!! aeana to pay or amtisfy 

the indebtedness due plaintiff) th?t they sr® n© longer the owners of 

the equity of redeaption and do not reside ©n the preaiaeaj th?st Harry 

Cohen is the present owner fktiA does not reside on the premiaee nnd 

th'*t petitioner doea not have »ny knowledge of his present where;* houts. 



•SjtjtVM til* oJ ncu* t:^! r tol fc»fta«q«» »«i«o« »i* &&» •* Itiiw 

... ij.©c (tx.n^.Cc -N'U 

••X#Xt lo alfldo dii^ Al t^>»qq« #e« 

•l>8Tiqv* fend »it«MX«i««^ ta-^s*^** »"»X^ »^ 
701; #rtwo» »li* or ***^«<«« nxtaiflXq .O^ftX , jm\, aO 

at aotmn t>9i\lx»f Bid aoqu fpxi »▼!'» •> *ti9aii -Ai 

•to toiieq tt<:^*'»«*« <**««« <^^ ^^^ .»flX«i«»o» •!!> 4tXw «oi*Otttftfl©» 

o» i>«iXft#iit s*^ ^alb^»9ptq «oXta fil* 1© w^^iv \ ' ^^ •«'♦ ** 

00 .a.ltn^c .*nifnX ^•X^ .nitm-lq «t^ -^ molten 

..*«ieXc»oo »ri* 0* fc»iJt b«9«I tPiit #«<!* »« jiilveil t avail' 
B||£rtrt* it9ri#o s«o»/? noxn*- »▼ «»ni*fll«X1 

10 «i««wo •«* T«»floi «« **''* v*d* *.rf# ^nijai^iq •irD •••«fc»Wiito«i •rfjr 
.^ei«i»T(? •tft no «M«e^ ton ««c - ^■'^*»'^^ »rf* '^ "•'^^^^ 



Ob J9.mt.nrf S5, 1940* the 4«f®»d*ftt, Hayiy Oohen, by i#mvt 
of OOTirt, fii«(i Ilia knm«'T to ®©id Fttition, srhioh deBi«ii th't there 
iF-asa dvi« plaintiff the g\m of fweaty I'lve fh©uaa.nd Four Hundred Fifty 
»ad 78/ir>0 (135,450.78) lioilfeTs, oa said junior tnjtt d««d sought to 
b« fore©iosedj thnt asid trust deeft land aotet wty« dellTey«4 t© one, 
Ovsta'w 0. ^nderaon. In conalder»tl©n f@r mitmy due hi® for ereetlng 
the hwlldiag on premise^ dsscsri'bed in the sainplnint for CJyrus B, olwinj 
thftt 8ubi»©Quentiy, Olson d«f©,vlt0d la p®ya«nt of aot©8 nmi ffint<*r«d 
into «n agre©®#at with ^.ndersoa i«ph«reby OIsob »M hi® wife would 
ooav©y pxraiaea t© Anderson, In ©oasidermtion rhsrtef, Anderason 
w©uid o'^no®! th« trust d«ed and nates smi^t to ije foreeioaed herein; 
that pursuant to th« i^.gre«ai«at, Oyrsii !• Olson »nd cthel Olson oonv^yed 
the pr«jHiise8 to ^stnve Aaderson on Msreh 39, 1929, whieb de#d was 
r«eord«d as doouaneat uo, 103a4l3S, and was in full psy«a»iife »ad afttis" 
fttetloQ of indehtednesQ and notes %nd trust deed r«pr«9«nting same ant 
tiiat th«r«^ th« lien of the trust d®«d ^©^.a© *xtiagui«h«td aad ««rg«d 
vlth the f€« of pr««l8e«; thnt by rer^gon of s^^id aierger there is 
a&thing due to plaintiff )nder astd trust deed and notes; th^t plaintiff 
it buirvAd from msisint^nii^ the preg^snt -ration to forsolt^e said trust 

The i%na*@r of the defendi?.at adalts th?'*t on October 35, 19S3, 
plRintiff paid a?5gt«r X.?5Jatry Treaty Four Thousand ilne Hundred Sixty 
Six and «0/lfX) (¥24,966.40) DoHs-ra, and that s^id Master issued a 
eertlfionte of redemption, and the defead*»nt denlee th?»t plwintiff la 
entitled to reeover Twenty Four thouess-nd Sine Hundred sJixty Six and 
40/100 ($S4«9e6«40) Dolleire, as an sdv^neeiMent imdier »«ld trust deed 
end denlea th«t there Is due plaintiff the sua of ?lfty ihous'^nd Four 
Hundred 3eventee» and 18/l!X (#50,417.18) aoiisrs, or that the truat 
deed is A lien en the property desoribed. 

It further spT>e%re from the Anas^er th«t the preolsea %re on 
the north'??^ at oorn^r of v.eiiington and 3«ntrs!l /.venues, Ohloag©, -ind 
»re improved with -s three story brlek huildiag, oontaining 18 epBTtmeats 



«»ee o^ t^-TO'TjlXofe <»ir9ir ofofi ^ffft b««fc ttirrt bi^^e y.«tf9 2t)»eoIo«7<jf!t «(f 

^it«mt:t ««1 ffid ftdb xmttiti ri^ aoifmrnbtnttiiti at ,£te»<t9i!>ct'« .0 itTntatfO 
;3<wI5 ii<S •triT^ iro^ talJijCgaov "it* «i fc«tfjT»»«b ij««i«<»tn no aaifcliiief tiff 

Mi/0«r g^jhv Bid Mm rosXO ^('•'tM^ AAAir^bfl; diim ttX9ti»»%:^e an otai 

^»^ *»*rne8 (io«»lv i'idt^ bap aosXO .iS ci/ttt) «#amB»M$ji lit ot ^Aiurstxiq >«iCf 

ttfrfs bf'^t delHw «@fr€X «Clv /{OYali ffo ffo•)tA^tt^ •v»(#»jt/€ oif tftrnm-xti •Mt 

-CifJSff toJR lR«ii;\'«rt? llt/i ffl sr^p ten «€9X^seOI .oX nr««tf«N>b ti! i;fti»oo«i^ 

b»fi;r»m htus b9tS9ttrSifitrm vit^Dit^ {)«•& fvurt iult to a«iJt Mt xdBTi»n: 

lliMlsX^? tmtf \999en fiiji«f &««£' tetnt fein* <r»tecr m-XtfiiisXc: o^ sxit) ^aiitd^ofi 

^esex ,85^ T»«te#oO no SnOi 9flmtp $ejfha9l*ii »jS* lo iswsiia »<T 
X#xiH h»Tfefli/B taXS feiirauw^rfT T*«>t x*««*^ t»^»^ T»f«pli W*q tixjaiiU^ 

fcflff »1S t*»^^ fctrfcfltfH »flX8 fciwutwilT ittfoi %ta9-.7 i9ro©»T o^ i)«X^ltii» 

l)9»i» ittfT? j!>X»« x«lK!jy #ntBi*«fl«yJt>« 0a aj* ^MXtUvG (C-*«^e«»*^) 00X\0# 

T^ ^fl^etiorf'^ -"'■ to ■»• »rf# ni#«MX(i tffft "X »t«4^ *<»rft eoiiiol? bn* 

fr~---* —^ ,«,rr^'r (i8X.W>,0e|) 00X\8X iMa «»»t«»vt»? J^»«|»aii« 

...,..-....; -,- jTi^^tfJ T»«jinA 9lii »0»t ai- '>c ■;•--. tfl^ffXi/t 'v 

,<.,;.-.nh-: ^«ft-mw.. X«t^oO Imia oo^^nX^ x90T»o tt*wd*iioa »dt 

„ , -ji'. f:rff rffili'o vno^e !9«*:rf* !• i3l*Xw b9VQxq»t 9%M 



4 

«ad 3 stores sad th t tUe ajontiilf lno®ae A^rl-red therfroa is 
?i9proxia«-tely ITOO.OO to 1^0,00 pet m^nth, on 110,300.00 per y#s,yj 
that tiae iapreve.^eata aye spproxiaately 13 y«>ir« old sad th^t the 
eatlre property hnn th« fair o&ah awirltet value ©f Fifty thousaad 

fh« ooateatioss of the tlefsadant nre th??t the burden sf 
showing th« aeeessity for the !?.|SpoiBta«at ®f *?. reeei-9'«'r is on the 
plaintiff, and th^^t piaiatiff ha® a©t smataia«t that feurdiea ffiithen- 
hy th« t^ooplaiat or petition or by testimony. I»isiatiff»8 aa.«i!«i' 
to thes« oont«Btione is thst m oouTt of 0haao«ry will ^ppoiat a 
receiver on eoasider»^tioB of all the eqtidties in the o*a« la order to 
preserve the sro?«rty in Its custody for '©hiohever of the psirtles 
will ultltBstely prove to t>e eatltled thereto. 

It irsuld appear froia the Aasiser of the dl©fead.«Bt that he 
ooatende j>ialBtiff*8 iaortg?4ge l® iav9,lii be«5?4:use it is ai^rge^ ?rlth 
the tltie^ ftad further that plslntiff»8 re4eait>tlon is void, this, 
of course. Is m question whleh le the Issue to be deterisined by the 
court oa a flaul he -ring. The cuestlon whioh we are ooaoernecil 
ffith is whether the oourt -y'^si in error ia sppoiatlng a reoelver where 
It appe>r» fro« the st%tetE«nt9 whioh ^r^ ooat^^laed la the p«titl©a 
^ad ooaplalat awi the .^a«wer of the defeadmat »as3, not beiag i» 
posseesloa of the premises, there la fm Issue of faot to he deterialaed 
toy the oourt bM. ^ppiy the law ta It will ooatrol u,p©a r auestloa of 
like ohar^oter. 

It would seem thi»t the defeadaat wowld have no etandlag la 
Oourt upoa the aueetioa th-^t we hsve hefore ua for the re-^soa thwt 
the oourt hiss not yet determined whether there wns a aierger of the 
tltlej attd, therefore, there »»« e situ%tioa th ^t the oourt ??sg 
obliged to t<is.fee lato ooaalderstioa la the «^pp©latsaeat of the neoelver 
la question. 0»der the olrouawt^aoea the oourt »^s justified la 
?rppoiBtlBg a reoelver until the jraestlons i^ioh were raised hy the 



»i soTttsxfir b^rtfith intMii xXit;f£rott 9>Hi t-'dt ban •»<X0#« C koM 
fk. ha»i bio e%«st KX tX»*fl»l3roTq[<|ji tm ttfi'>m9rotxiiU •ds in&i 

t«sr«fl^ a'ttl^iilt^X^ ,XaomtS90S xd X0 aoititsq 10 int»lq^Q ttiii x<i 

6l <r«JbYo ai M«o »itf/ Ai aal^ltfp* »ffi XXa to aQl$aii9himao9 oo i9Tl»0ftt 

0«i^«^ 9flt to i9Y9tfQlif«r T«t ^^^imuo uH ttl Y#«*qotq ftil^ aTT««*«q 

,o^»rcAi bnlttliatt »t) o# arotq xX»^M>i'Xu Xiiv 

s(f ^Rd;t {TnAhaatftl) •At to VftvuiA ajlf aoitt YJi*qqa JtXuow #1 

cf^Xv b»^xtm bX #X Mu^otttf £Xl**vni •! ftSJiifioK s'ttX^raXcXi; •ftaa^noo 

,eX({t .Mot tl floXrqaabat ■*nX#ai«Xq fMf# r^dixUi baa 4*l*tf •di 

9di xd bittimfit^ ltd 0t •zsvtit 9di ai 4«Xif» floX#a»i/p « aX ^aeiuoo to 

j^aatsoRoo <»Tft aw deXiiv noX^aaup aif? •;^XT'-fttf XenXt » no #iurof 

aiailv tavlaoa^ .« j^l;faXo>7qe aX toTia at arw t'xuoa ad^ tai(#a<Nr aX lUkv 

Boitlt*q «!(# nX bmit^ttwo Vim tffti«la »tif«Bairj»#8 od> maftt atpac^qi* #X 

Hi sitXocf toff (Mtft (haal^nalo£» a^f to Y«a«a« aatftf iMsin jrfi:X«X(tlM>6 Ii0# 

bmiJtmx^ft ad ol #o^ to awaaX t^ »i vtiidi «»a«|aiasn f'^ tc aoXaaaaitMi 

to tt»ltmt>p a aoQtf Xcnt9a»e : '~ -^i §0 maJ, 9A$ xf^m Ma txueb ^M yid 

»t9i9Bxndc> «iiti 
at ^^cUbafiiR on «rmd tUiem #s«Je»i«ta^ •«# jTrit^ A»»a IkXiWr ^£ 

tfidit ao»t>9T »{19 Tot otf avotacf arr«il o* fj»i(^ AoX^aosut^ mUT aoqu ^uroo 
oiCf to x»TSt»m * BJm arraift T»A»<f*lm b^ttJmr^twt titx 9ca aiwef ttvoo «^^ 

•Tfitri-ftnsf^ of(» to tmmimimsigm 9d3 ut a^X^^xoManoa o^ax ojIj^j' o^ tajiXXoio 

..?i l--pilTlimt^ a«w tis'iuoo ari* eaa«jfisr«iu*9tXo mit itofeat? ,aoXiN!«»o fiX 



s 
& 

issue -iTe d«tg:3r«in«d. and s. deoree xipon the cm©«t.ioa is satared, «*. 

receiver «*iouid be appoi3at#d if it is aid© to sppftf^.T t&!?t there is 

9. necessity to pr« serve the property for nu&h imrfeies as ^«li b© 

eatitl«d te the be^fit. firat fentiomX Mnk v, gage. 79 ill. m7. 

There is « furtfear queatian whiolj abcml^l ^ ooBsldefed, it 

hsTing b««n iaad« by the d®fead«nt, tb^rt tfeer« ■«f?>B utterly ao ©roof 

Bade ns to tl«* villus of the pyopei'ty, aad tbat tfee ^ospiaint and 

pstitioR ms^e «o «,4«miji.t« gt«t«a«iit ©f Its irwitAe, -sjad tfejst the eourt 

took no evidtaae, ?«fUsiag an off«? of def«adaBt'» ©rnins®! to do ee. 

of eouy»«, tb« fiefeodlant irx his aasrer admitted th t the pl.«iatiff 

invested in tke redemption of tke preaiaea, «&ioh woul4 indioats 

thst 13« hs».a » autostantiftl interest in tM subject matter of tfeis 

Iltig tion, ?nri if th« dief«?n*&at d«8iyed to offer teatiffior^ um»a 

the Qu«3tion of tm timnatBl intr-T#«t whioh the plaiatiff hud in 

this foreclosure proseudii^, h« o©uid have ©ff«r«d evideaee by 

oaliiag witneases t© the stand for the ouxpeae of testily iag and if 

this was refused ht eeuid, have offered to pr©v« th# faets whloh h© 

believed the witnesses would have proven by thftir tPstiatoay, This 

the dcf«!?adant did not djo, and an the oo-urt in the ease of Stevesm 

V. BewBfen» m 111, s.Dp, &49, stated in ita opinian: 

"A mere statement of .^n offer to nvorff is not anything upon 
whieh m eeurt is cslled upon to smt. The witnesses should be 
oalled mad <?ueationed, or docu«ent?try evidenoe produosd," 

end again in the o%ae ©f strong v. Friedaasn. 1361 111. 4p|j, 6011, the 

eourt quoted froa o?5s€ entitled phio^.go City %« Oa . v. Oayiro-3. , 3i,. 

0OS 111. 318, upon s like question, *h#re the oourt ^rnid: 

'•App«li»nt, in f-aot, offered no evidenoe upon the matter, m 
witnea» wae pvtt ©n the stand; no ^luestion srws sslced, Nothing 
wee done exoept '9, msve oonvero-^tion or tfiik hnd b«tire©n oounael 
* ♦ • «-nd the court. Such prooedxjre «.a thr?t does not amotmt to 
an offer of eviienee, and the rwiasrks of tae court dil not «mount 
to *»- r«»fu»?»l to '4dffiit evidenoe. • * » if ^inoell^nt desired to 
»»lt« the contention it no» awkes, it should h«ve %t le^-st put a 
witness upon the stand and proceeded f'*r enough th^.t the rjucstion 
relating to the point it is no* snid it ^s =iC34ir«?d to offer 
evidence utmn rns reached, Bnd then put the question ^nd sllow 
the court to rule upon it, and th«^n offer what was expected t© 
be proved by the witness, tf he *ns not mlloi^ed to answer the 
question disked.** 



a 

si »ir»^7 ffiitt <K<*fteftr« At lAuNR •! 9t ti t)«faio<;t;n ttcf Muofd) tofitoei 
•CCS^TOS .ill «T t^fe^ .r jteiit Iflgol»iMH ^jntii. .*n*fl#€f tut o# 6«I*l*na 

tarn IHiff^ai^e Mf i»dt I^p .t^serora •((# ^0 •si»ir Mt «f cjt ttAjw 

m^ai/tX«t Mff t*d$ fifim^ti 7*«Mfi aiif ni tti.zba^\%t tit ^mtuoo 10 

«iJf# Ite t%tttm f^t«t9ti Hi :»e«t'»#isi IfuliHufdititi n ASif fttf tnitl 
soo^tf tffcMBi#B9# Y»lrlo <># bi)iti«»i^ #iiii6«<*^«b •at tl bii« «rtol(^ gl#lX 

ii OoUtf vttMrt sift 9^^scr of b9t»lto •tjmI Muoo td Jb*«fit»t itsw tidf 

•ilfr .tOlMiitSStf «l«lft t<^ aVT««C( •««iC J^ltfOW «»88 9£[#1« 9if# b»T»lXMf 

■ igggfllf !• WtAO ttii^r Hi #«a«» »il(r «^ bfliif ,ol> ^011 bit) #ff .>ii^ 

:fl«iirlao j»*1 ui b%fntw »e*8 .qcA ,XXX f9 ^h^wcp-^k. .v 

»«fc^ ,SI» •«pr/ ,XXI XdS? »g59«fe»lT^ .▼ agottg to »8rt0 tit* «1 filfrst^ taa 

:Mi>« frmm <Mit •T«rf7>:c ,iicitewrp »tfiX .9 a^u «8l£ .XXI Me 

oil •'g**#«i •** ««q# •w?~- '"- -- — ''^- , '^ ■-' _—-.'...--'.« 

XBWWm n«»<rtOtf bind tlmf «<■ ^-.i^^ -...7 r.,..: :. ^. -.y 

faijoiti» t0a ttb inewe *•'♦ *"» »!r«!Mi*5f .». "* - ^ ='''■* ,5 a© 

c# tjwile'ib tn^llB -" * * ,•©« e oi 

s ti^ Hm91 fn *r«*i ..,*,^,..,.^^ fX ,»*-^-'^ "^^s» 

aoit?s9«n wftf" t«rfJ iifScr«a« rs\ bH>99" > <' 

Ttllo «tr btnJt»»b «#» #1 £»lj»e -^c v. „..-.; ..., .., ,.^.-. . . 

»oXX» Isa* flcJ*»oxjrr »d# #i*q ««il# fcK« ,f39do«9TC »itv aoqw son- 

•t b*t99^itm 9f!m 9- ~^o ft*ift ban «#i aoqju tiXsnE 



Fro« this rm&QTA %« i^ hnf «K%ntiatd It %hm e&urt did &d% 

refuse to "ht-nt e-rldenee fyojs a wltnisss on %hm at»a€ re«dy t© testify. 

fh* defendsat contends th'-t t.te« cou:rt utterly failed to tsie siqr 

eTid«no« »h*».te'»er on the eonts^fition, ^it ©t#» refused to <io 9®, mad 

bn-aed its ordar for iRppeintiiig s rs^eiver ®n the s«for& coapls^int sad 

petition only, aad, th%t «n«h a«tl©B ^.^g eoatt'SJ'y to iaw« 

AS w« have airewAy indioated, the question pi-eaented t© 

this e©\i^t is n question of atrgexi thnt "being n. mention wfeloh will 

have to se d@t!^r«in«d bj the ocRjrt oa th« hearing, w« s.re aat of the 

opiBioa thit tfe« trial oeurt «yr«d in ftppoiatiiag; n r«oeivtr of tfe« 

inropexty in question. 

fh« question ishioh rearaias to 19« ^et®raiin«d ia whether th« 

omurt -in oatftring ©.a order stpeoiatlng n. reo«iver without ai^ teatiaioiigr 

whatoTor &hua«d ito discrfttion. In one of the cnsos omlled to our 

attention hy th« plaintiff, o , ohaote r, .aoKey. 37 111, App» 460, this 

OotU^t an Ids 

"An &ppIiO'?*tion for th« ^ppexntmnt of a rssoelver ia sMreased 
to the sound judioial diaoretlon of th^ court, taking into aocount 
ail the oiroufltatrmoesi of the oum, ?*nd, if «Tt»r«la#d, is for the 
p«urpo8« of proeaoting the ends of justic® and of protect ing th© 
rights of «il the parties inter^-'stcd in the oontroversy %nd the 
sutojcet fflttter * » «,^ 

and ftg&in this oourt mid in m"Omimll Co . tr. Woo4s. S47 lU. ipp, 170, 

"Th* priai%jy purp©9« of th« statute is to w&rWiit a review of 
ths e?f*»rcis« of th« Alsoretion lac!g«d in th® ©h'?no©ilor ?rith ths 
purpose of <1«teraiatag whether the int^rloctitory order proh.«.bly 
was n«ess05*.ry to ««lntain th© stfitt^ , 8 q-^ ^j,^ and safeserrs th« eouiti($bl« 
rli^ts of thft parties.** 

Under th© f«>ot» rs they «re allogod in ths plaintiff »® oo«- 
Flal&t stnd petition for the »ppoint»eat of ^ reeslvsr and the def#nd«nt»9| 
o^asver, ^ belisre thst the oourt s-^a ftiily justified in sppointiag 
* rtoeiver and did not ftbuae its disor<;tion in making suoh appointasent. 

For the reA8«M stated the or ier of the Court im »,ffir»ed. 



toa bib trii&9 mU il fmimmmtt •v«if Mr mm htwr Mid* mt% 

^t aJfc 09 fc«»a»»t mhris ^i«/ tcos «rf# «<> toTAtRifv t»tf»ftiT» 

.w«l «# T»»»t«o?> »<?•» (Vdit-011 tf«>{» #«rf* fta« f'fXAO eiottit9q 

«<!# >o tost vrn t«t «^iviK#4 •«[* a^ rt /CO *«t* x;tf fiiwtiwn ^ irvii 

»rf.t t« ^•iri*©*^ K ■saitnlwinn ai fc»rt9 ^Tt/oo Initt •at ^ras tiQjjstq^ 

•aoi#«»tm tit XtXBqeTq 

-two OS l^^ff"-"^ *'*»p'© wtif to »ffO Al .4iv.-*:.<^.vr.ife efi Jb(i«ju0ii ''t»ni$i )■■■. 

■ 'fil 
..it 

,CTi .c^i^'-- .ill V*i ♦ii:,;,.^, »^^ »f ^l , XX" .,-,vov/^;4 «A ^;e ^"iw©* ftiiil' al«$j^ Ims 

"-SB'S"' ■•■'*■■.; ■;*i.u • ■ I 



Published in Abstract 



People of the State of Illinois, l^intiff^ Errpr, v. 
James D/Flyip, Defendant in Jlrror. 



\ 



(|fen. No. 9222 ^. ' ^ . i "^ . %j, . [J 



Mr. Justice Fultox delivered the opinion of the 
court. 

The grand jury of Champaign County returned an 
indictment against James D. Fhnm on April 12, 1939, 
for malfeasance in office. The indictment consists of 
nine counts. The first count charges that the defend- 
ant, during all of the time between the 1st day of Jan- 
uary, 1938, and the 15th day of February, 1939, was the 
duly elected, qualified and acting Mayor of the City of 
Champaign, in Champaign County, Illinois, and that 
during all of said time he did wilfully, intentionally 
and unlawfully fail and omit to perform his official 
duty as Mayor of the said City of Champaign, in that 
he did, then and there, wilfully and intentionally fail, 
neglect and omit to use any sincere effort or to make 
any sincere endeavor or attempt whatever to stop gam- 
ing and the keeping of common gaming houses in said 
City of Champaign, which said gaming was then and 
there in progress and which said common gaming 
houses were then and there being kept and operated in 
said City of Champaign, in violation of the laws of the 
State of Illinois. And so the grand .iurors charged 
that the defendant "is guilty of a palpable omission 
of his official duty." 

The second count is the same as the first count, ex- 
cept it charges failure to make "any effort" to stop the 
keeping of houses of ill fame. 

The third count is the same as the first count, except 
it charges a failure to make "any effort" to stop the 
setting up of lotteries for money. 

The fourth count is like the first count, except it 
charges that it was the duty of the defendant to make 
a sincere effort to stop gaming and the keeping of com- 
mon gaming houses in the City of Champaign, and it 
does not add the charge that he "is guilty of a palpable 
omission of official duty." 

The fifth count is like the second count, except it 
charges that it was the duty of the defendant to make 
a sincere effort and endeavor and attempt to stop the 
keeping and maintaining of houses of ill fame, and it 



Page 2 Gen. No. 9222 

charges that the defendant then and there "mlfnllVr 
knowingly, intentionally, pal])ably and unlawfully"' 
failed and omitted to perform his oflfioial duty as Mayor 
in that he wilfully, knowingly and intentionally failed^ 
neglected and omitted to make any sincere effort or 
endeavor or attempt to stop the keeping and maintain- 
ing of houses of ill fame, etc. 

The sixth count is like the third count, except it 
charges that it was the duty of the defendant to make 
a sincere effort and endeavor to stop the setting up 
and promotion of lotteries for money, and that the 
defendant "wilfully, knowingly, intentionally, palpably 
and unla\\"f ully " failed and omitted to perform his offi- 
cial duty in that he failed, neglected and omitted to 
make any sincere effort to stop the setting up and pro- 
motion of lotteries for money. 

The seventh count is like the fourth count, except 
that it pleads an ordinance of the city of Cliampaign, 
which provides that the Mayor "shall have the general 
supervision and control of the police," and charges 
that "it then and there became and was the duty of 
the said James D. Flynn, under said ordinance and 
under the laws, to make a sincere effort and endeavor 
and attempt to stop gaming and the keeping of gaming- 
houses in the said city of Champaign. 

The eighth count is like the fifth count, except it 
pleads an ordinance of the city of Champaign, which 
larovides that the Mayor ' ' shall have the general super- 
vision of the police" and charges that "it then and 
there became and was the duty of the said James D. 
Flynn, under said ordinance and under the law, to 
make a sincere elTort and endeavor and attempt to stop 
the keeping and maintaining of houses of ill fame in 
the City of Champaign. ' ' 

The ninth count is like the sixth count, except it 
pleads an ordinance of the City of Cliampaign, which 
provides that the mayor "shall have the general super- 
vision and control of the police," and it charges that 
"it then and there became and was the duty of the said 
James D. Flynn, under said ordinance and under the 
law, to make a sincere effort and endeavor and attempt 
to stop the setting up and promotion of lotteries for 
money in the City of Cliampaign. ' ' 

Three of these counts — • the first, fourth and 
seventh — are based on the failure of the defendant to 
stop gaming and the keeping of conamon gaming 
houses in the City of Champaign. Three of the counts 
— the second, fifth and eighth — are based on the failure 



Page 3 Gen No. 9222 

to stop the keeping of houses of ill fame in Champaign. 
And three of the counts — the third, sixth and ninth — 
are based on the failure to stop the setting up and 
promotion of lotteries for money in the City of Cham- 
paign. 

Seven of the counts — the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, 
seventh, eighth and ninth — charge a failure to make 
any "sincere effort" to stop gaming, etc., and two 
counts — the Second and third — charge a failure to 
make "any effort" to stop the keeping of houses of 
ill fame, etc. 

Three of the counts — the first, second and third — 
charge that the defendant "wilfully, intentionally and 
unla\\"f ully " failed to perform his official duty as 
Mayor, and sLx of the counts — the fourth, fifth, sixth, 
seventh, eighth and ninth — charge that the defendant 
"wilfully, knowingly, intentionally, palpably and un- 
lawfullj'" failed to perform his duty as Mayor. 

The defendant in error filed a motion to quash the 
indictment and each and every count thereof. After 
argument the Circuit Court of Champaign County al- 
lowed the motion, entered an order quashing the indict- 
ment and discharged the defendant in error. 

The plaintiff in error contends that the indictment 
is sufficient to charge the defendant in error with pal- 
pable omission of duty and asks that the judg-ment of 
the trial court be reversed and the case remanded for 
trial. 

The defendant in error insists that the order of the 
Circuit court was correct and sets forth many reasons 
why the indictment is insufficient. In our view of the 
case it is only necessary to consider the second ground 
urged in his brief as follows : 

"The indictment is defective because it does not 
apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the 
accusation against him with sufficient particularity 
to enable him to prepare his defense and to plead 
conviction or acquittal in bar of a subsequent prose- 
cution." 

The charge in the indictment in this case is based 
upon the violation of Par. 449, Chapter 38, 111. Eev. 
Statutes, 1937, State Bar Assn. Ed., which reads as 
follows : 

"Every person holding any public office (whether 
state, county or municipal), trust or emplojTnent, 
who shall be gi^ilty of any palpable omission of duty, 
or who shall be gnilty of diverting any public money 
from the use or purpose for which it may have been 



Page 4 Gen N"o. 9222 

appropriated, or set apart by or under antliority of 
law, or who shall be gnilty of contracting directly or 
indirectly, for the expenditure of a greater sum or 
amount of money than may have been, at the time of 
making the contracts, appropriated or set apart by 
law or authorized by law to be contracted for or ex- 
pended upon the subject matter of the contracts, or 
who shall be guilty of wilful and corrupt oppression, 
malfeasance or partiality, where no special pro^asion 
shall have been made for the punishment thereof, 
shall be fined not exceeding $10,000.00, and may be 
removed from his office, trust or employment." 
The plaintiff in error suggests the section of the 
Statute which provides than an indictment in the lan- 
guage of the Statute creating the offense or so plainly 
that the nature of the offense may be easily understood 
bv the Jury is sufficientlv correct. III. Rev. Statutes,. 
1937, Chap. 38, Par. 716.' 

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States provides that the accused has the right 
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusa- 
tion against him. 

Section Nine of Article Two, of the Constitution of 
the State of Illinois provides that the accused has the 
right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation 
against him. 

In many cases in Illinois, it has been held that such 
constitutional provisions mean that sufficient facts 
must be set out in the indictment or information to 
enable the defendant to prepare his defense and to 
avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protec- 
tion against further prosecution for the same oflfense. 
This appears to be a necessary requirement even 
though the indictment or information was set out in the 
specific lang-uage of the Statute. 

In the case of People v. Green, 368 111. 242, the in- 
formation charges that the defendant did "drive a 
vehicle upon a public highway of this State situated 
within the limits of the City of Cliica.go — with a wilful 
and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or 
property", etc. The basis for the indictment was the 
violation of Sec. 48, Par. 323, Cliapter 121, of the State 
Bar Ed. of Eev. Statutes, 1935, which provided: 

"Any person who drives any vehicle with a wilful 
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or 
property is guilty of reckless driving." 
The Supreme Court held the information insufficient 
and void and said : 



Page 5 Gen. No. 9222 

"The information in tlie present case did not al- 
lege a single fact and there was nothing in it from 
which the defendant could tell definitely, or even 
gness, what acts he may liave been charged with. It 
might have been driving while intoxicated, or run- 
ning through a stoplight, or driving at an excessive 
speed or without brakes, lights or horn; he may have 
been driving on the wrong side of the road or on the 
sidewalk, or mthout keeping proper lookout for 
children, or any one of dozens of things which might 
constitute wilful and wanton disregard for the safety 
of persons or property. Neither does it specify 
where the offense took place, as it might have been 
on any street or highway in the whole of Chicago, 
and it might have taken place on any date within 
eighteen months prior to the filing of the informa- 
tion. All that appears in this information is that in 
the opinion of the person who wrote it and the per- 
son who signed it, the defendant had been guilty of 
driving a vehicle "\\ath wilful and wanton disregard 
for the safety of persons or property. It thus fails 
to meet either of the two basic requirements of an 
information. It does not give defendant enough in- 
formation to prepare his defense and it is not suffi- 
ciently definite to be of any value as a bar to further 
prosecution." 

In People v. Bronm, 336 HI. 257, an information 
charged that the defendant "did wilfully and unlaw- 
fully practice a system or method of treating human 
ailments without the use of drugs or medicine and 
without operative surgery, without a valid existing 
license so to do". The information was couched in the 
language of the Statute. The Court quoted and 
adopted the following rule : "As the rule is sometimes 
stated, the allegation must descend far enough into 
particulars and be certain enough in its frame of words 
to give the respondent reasonable notice of what will 
be produced against him at the trial," and further 
"The general rule is that it is sufficient to state the 
offense in the lang-uage of the Statute, but this rule 
applies only where the Statute sufficiently defines the 
crime. A\^iere the Statute creating the offense does 
not describe the act or acts which compose it, they must 
be specifically averred in the indictment or informa- 
tion." Many other Illinois cases have announced and 
adopted this rule. People v. Barnes, 314 111. 140. 
Pent^le v. West, 137 111. 189. 



Page 6 Gen No. 9222 

The indictment in this case does not allege any 
knowledge on the part of the defendant in error. There 
is no charge in any of the counts of the indictment 
[/ designating or setting out where the said law violations 
occurred, when they took place or the persons or places 
conducting the said violations of the Statute. 

We cannot conceive how a defendant could possibly 
prepare a defense to such blanket charges covering a 
period from January 1st 1938 to the 15th of February, 
1939. The prostitution, the lotteries and the gambling 
complained of might have been conducted by various 
people at various locations and at various times, all 
of which were unknown to the defendant in error. 

In our judgment the indictment does not give the 
defendant enough information to prepare his defense 
and it is not sufficiently definite to be of any value as 
a bar to further prosecution. The Circuit Court cor- 
rectly allowed the motion to quash and the judgment 
is affirmed. 

Affirmed. 

b14 (A-1959S— 14) 



AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 
Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tue Gday j the 6th day ojf 'Hebruary , in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred d^d forty; within 
and for the Second District of the State;' of Illinois.' % 

\ f - A 

Present — The Hon. FRED G, WOLjFE, Presiding JustiGe^^*'^*'' \ 

Hono BLAINE HUifFMAN, Justice ^ '' \, 



% 



Hon. FRANKLIN ^. DOVE,.r Jul ties . 

JUSTUS L« JOIInsON, Gllr# r^lir\ ^ 'f 1%, jr» -t i\ 

i i 1/ 3'0 5 i«A* 6iy 

Ec 4 WELTEf, Sheriff 



V 



i n A r\ 



BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On fiy\; 
the Opinion of the Court was filed in the Clerk's Office of said 
Court, in the words and figures following, viz; 



.v.si.-*^'^^'""'"""""' '"''*'li. 



.^ 



/ ^M^: 










^'^ 



Gen. No. 9509 Ag. No. 7 

IN THE 
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 
SECOIff) DISTRICT 

FEBRUARY TSBI'.I, 1940 

Laura M. Russell, 

(j/iaiiitlf-f ) ;ippellee Appeal fro'a Countj Court 

Ts. of Peoria Ooatrty, Illinois 

New York Life' Insurajice Oonpany, 
a corporation, 

( Defendant ) Appellant . 

WOLFE, P.J. 

On r^Iaroh 15, 1926 and July 29, 1926, the Now York Life Insurance 
Company issued tv/o policies of insurance to the plaintiff. Each 
policy contained a total and psriaanent disability claiice as follomrs: 
"Disability shall be considei^ad total whenever the insured is so 
disabled by bodily injury or disease tiiat he is vjholly prevented 
froi'a performing any 7/ork, from follov/ing any occupation, or from 
engaging in any business for reii;uneration or profit," On September 
12, 1938, the plaintiff, Laura M. Russell, plaintiff-appellee, 
instituted a proceeding against the Neis York Life Insur-aiucs Coitipany, 
the appellai'it, in whicji she calimed that she vms totally, permanently, 
continuously and wholly disabled -and prevented fro.:: perfor3:'d.ng any 
work or engaging in any ocoupation for compensation. The defendant 
filed its answer and set forth the disability proYisions of the 
policies and denied liability, claiming that the plaintiff was not 
totally disabled, as required by the policy of insurance. The cause 
was tried before a jury resulting in a verdict in favor of the 
plaintiff for §516.00, Judgment was rendered on the verdict, and the 
New York Life Insurance Company perfected an appeal to this Court, 

The plaintiff in"Groduced evidence tendiri^ to show that while 
she was endeavoring to hang wall paper in her home, aha was standing 
on a board Vv'hich was placed across a uTitia';; desk, and tJiat she fell 
off of the board and hurt her back. The testimony further was that 
as a result of such fall, wlienever she tried to work, 3h.e had pains 



T .ol'l .^ ^059 .oil .neO 

SIOJUJJI '-1 a[TAXiS<HA 

4 i. j.rL;;,-Jj>- . ivi ■■-•iJ.'t;. i 

eionllXI jX^^J^*^^^' fiiioel to .^-.r 

. ^J-ii^XIdiiqA ( itutba&'toQ. ) 

•OflB-mBiiI 9'tiJ jiioT wbM extcf ,dS<?I ^^S xiu^ baa bSi91 »ilX doiaiA aO 

i'oj:3 .':",st X 1; ^ : Jit •oflfl-iimxii 1o seloiXeq ow* feewasi xnji<ixi:oD 

'<: BiS d&xjfilo Y«^^Xid£iB.r.£> taextocnoq fiajs l£;fo^ a Jb4d£;fnoo -^oJLIO(i 

oa oi '' levanexlw .Ls^o;^ i)9ieJl(Jt8floo atf IIuxIb "^tfilidBaia" 

Jb6d-jci©v3 ivi \.xlc .'t ^asBalb to -^Hftal iCllfcod y^ beld&Rlb 

isGrnajC]-' no ♦',3'I'ioiq i'. ■:3iiu>^3'^ ac-'i aaonlancf xoa at ^l:^:<£i3 

,xnflq0K>O eoiuBrca^fll ©!tl ' ' -" .reVL edi i&ntB^ jjuliesoo^rq jb bBiu:ftt^at. 

XOB 8fli!?irco!tT:e-j. . _. le<ta9V9iq ba& beld&Btb --elXoxfw Lea x^'^'OSJa.ltao9 

d'lusfjfist-.f -.7 ,i[ol;tj»ait9qjaoo rrol aolie,qiijooc ifflB si acigAaiie io Hiorn 

Slid _ iaivoici •^#XXlda«lt aitJ- jid"iol d^ee fixia newcuB a*l SaXxl 

dxjo: aBW ItilaljBXq edi ted^ SxixjeIsId iXiJ^iXIoflll Jbaiiiafi ba& aeiolXoq 

oajjBO sriT .sortr.'a'arri: "io \olXcq; 9xl« Tccf fieiii/pet 8« ,f>9X«fBBlfi ^XXjBtfoJ- 

vtoiftisT ii nl axiid-Ijjaoi 'ii/j[, b eioled b&tii ajsw 

.d"iifoO al: loelioq Tfna(ljaoO ©oxtsij 

^Jli./iv^ : •;-- . i^ivo bsoii} Xtitttalq .mAZ: 

Ilel 9rfe -::■■■[ .'■■,:[ 



-2- 

and t irew up her food; that she had to remain on a diet of fruit 
juiwes, soup and liquid; that she vms unable to do, and had not 
been able to do any work of any kind; that she had be en continuously 
prevented from doing any vrai'k since her accident. Doctor C. A. 
Ccz testified that he had examned the plaintiff; that she had 
tenderness across her back and in his opinion, she vras totally 
disabled froni doing any work. Doctor S. 0. Burhans ^-vas called as 
a witness and his test5.raony is similar to that of Doctor Oox, To 
rebut this evidence that the plaintiff was totall?/ disabled from 
doing work, the defendant called nujji.erous witnesses, scna of them 
next door neighbors of the plaintiff, v/ho testified tJat they 
observed the plaintiff doing the work around the house since the 
accident; that she did part of her ovra ironing; that she would sweep 
off her steps end sv;eep the living, roora; that the plaintiff had stated 
to one Y/itness, "That if she was not ^Me to ;^et buy disabilit^r from 
the Insioranoe Cor^ipan;^, that she would like to .^et a job in a restaur- 
ant as a v/ai tress." ■"'Itnesses further testified that the7/ had seen 
the plaintiff hanging up clothes, carry clothes, handling boxes, driv- 
ing the car, carry3.ng the rakes and shovels in the yard around the 
house, pick bear.s in the garden, and climb t.Vir'ough the garden fence, 
^ther v/itnesses testified that they har] seen the plaintiff drive 
her car, dance, eat fried fish, potatoes, vegetables and aver'^^hing 
else that ^ny one in nornal hea2.th could oat. 

This Coujpt had occasion in the case of Sibley vs. Travelers' 
Insurance Ccripany, 275 111. App. 323 and Buffo vs. Metropolitan 
Life Insu-:ar.ce Coripojny, 277 Hi. App. 366, to interpret the D.angaage 
used in insurance policies of this kind. We tbere held that the 
language is not ambiguous and thnt before a person could recover 
under such policies they must show that their disability vms such 
that they v/ere wholly prevented f ron performing any v;ork of following 
axLY occupation. The Appellate Court of the Fourth District in the 
case of Waj'-ckoff vs. Metropolitan Life Insiirajice Oonpany in 302 
App, at Page 241 held, that when a woman had had tuberculosis for 
three months and the doctor had reported that the disease was arrested^ 
and that he had perraitted the nlaintiff to do light housework, imder 



-s- 



ilinl to islb B no riliita9i o* baii exfe ifirid- jBool neri qir wex 3" boB 
' fiafi £»ns »o6 o;t slrfflxxu sbw exia ^feild' jfiiirpll ban qiroe ,ae»J:cft 

.A .0 rtoitooCI .d'csbxor. -.? 'i-^fi eoale i^-rovv viie 311I0I) atorrl J&ecf'neverrq 
bad 9xl8 cfflrid- ;'M:xd-x?.i6lGr onci- benh^xo fcari sri ^f-ari* f)©lti<fBecr xoO 

afl fceXlBO 8r»- >^-r.„.rrf .0 .s ^o;i-oo(l .al^tow job snioJb fltf»^1: fieXcfceiA 
oT «xoO nc:. ...... ^. .>...:• o;^ i&itmtf, si \noml:te,f!>& el.rf 5nj3 BB&atlvf s 

iJ3i-{:^ to anos ,8S8ReccMw etfcisaufxi fcelXso *xifff»n»l«6 «rl.t ^-itorr sniofe 



betBiB bsd TtttaloL^ 

-Till) ,aoxotf s^ilAfTP 
,9onet rsBbi 



. Bea^lw ©no o& 



tttiRe: 



Teri^olc 

bas 89. 



•rrf«»q'?ioO ©onf fr'^Tl pKt 
asd tti^fllslq ©ili 

.sod 

^I'x^ S&B fBoruib ,nBO led 
grco Y^e i'BxliJ' ©bXo 
i30oo bad trtifoO 



SflXil*''r^»v« Jbn« aoXcfG^eaeT ,s©o^fl^ocr 

I0OO ric+ 

'air. ro ©aso sxl.t 

/isd^iXoqoii'sM . . 

aSfljJS^fsX Bi'.& .tsT.i': 

Slid' ctB/IJ- i>X0xl Q-ioiii ©Vv .X>iiX5k axii;^ lo esxox 

levooerr fiXxroo noe^sq a ©aolred .tnrfd- ftjiB ajtfo/r 

rfoi/a 3fl\7 Y^'''-tXitfsaJtJ& rt^f 

SgXwoXXoI ^ 2I10W Yxw SRlBtioii^'cr cd-j t fi^jnereiir vi.Loxrvf eiaw xed'i' *Bil;^ 

art* ffi ioltt&lQ. difiuo'K »fi& "^ " — ' " ' ^ \?crx;ooo -^xib 



! oxw. jt/e. 
aoiiaixreni: ni b^su 
'^a ai ogfljJsoBX 
f'otra lebasj 



^Of .fT.f '""^!T";'>D f*fj?T'' f "^fry 



10'i oXiOiifC'ioci'f >' ''^ 
lafinif ,5liow6a.t;or? ^ri^i 



ri iS^t^OW B liOXlvV uv^^u .,,..uv... i..:^.-. -:^J3- . . ■'■ 



-3- 

the tarns of a similar policy, she could not recover. 

¥e are fully aware that it is a rule of law that after a jury 
hag decided a question of fact, that great weight should be given 
it, both by the trial coTU't and a court of reviev;, but where the 
verdict of a jury is nanifestly against the weight of the evidence, 
it is the di:ty of the raviev^ing court to set the same aside. In 
the present case v^e are of the opinion that the verdict of the 
jiiry vw-as manifestly against the weight of the evidence, therefore, 
the judgasnt inr.st be set aside. The usual practice in such cases 
would be for this Court to reverse and remand the case. Both the 
appellant and the appellee, in their printed brief, have requested 
this oouo't, that in case this jud-jnnent V'las reversed, not to remand 
the case, b\it ertar an order of reversal ar.d teiroinate the litiga- 
tion. Therefore, pi:rsu?.nt to the request of appellant and appellee^ 
the Judgment of the trial court mil be reversed and the remanding 
ordej.' v^ill be oiriitted. 

J^udgment Reversed, 



Ajouf, a rcoi^ltB JadJ wel lo elif-i js el &l iBd:i eiflws Y-t^twl sib e.V 

£i8via 9cf X)Ixror}.a, cfilaiew d-«©ajj i£di ^iOH'i to xioxd'eejyp £s hebXoeii bail 

arivj' eieriw iud .vrslvs*! ^o cf'itfoo js f^n ituoo lax^* edJ- x«i' died ^il 

^eoxieMve exid' ^o ctxtslew end" d"ajiiss«r yl^taeli/Lsn eii Tit't b lo Jo.tlJieT 

nI .afciafl stiusa erld- .(tee ocf ;fiuoo ■snivraiv^vi 9Ji^ "io Y£t.7fc uil>t el .^i 

eiicf 'io .tolLiev Bil& &Bti& noliiiqo priw to evLB 6W ©aiso cJxtofiei-q t-nid- 

jaiolsneri;? ^aonoLlvs erij to ;t'xljal9w edi cfanls^B x-t4'efttlaBja ejsw Y^tt^t 

eeeso xIOi/B al ©ol^Tofiaq isi/ai; e/fT .afclejp. J'ee acT d-axrm tasin&bul axfd' 

erlcT ilcfoa .©<iBO edi bnsmwx btm oaiavon oiJ ^nxroO alxSt lol ©d" IjIwcw 

basmBt oi ton ,£»©aaoT©^ a.^w iaBtjf^bKst ^lAf afijBO ixi dTBd;^ 4^*10/00 axjl(t 
-jj^l^tll 8xi;t ec^Biiixmad- bns XBe^'.=>T»^ to aeJ&TO ab te&as *j«f ,9800 wJJ 
„,e©IIeqqB baa iJfLsIIsqg^ to d-eex/pei ed* ot fasufiiLtr ,9ioteneriT .rroi* 
?ic;i£>neDaei ©jii* brm be^ne^ei ©c^ Xll^'r tf-n/oo Xeiiit -.mIJ- to itciaifi, , 

.be&tlsio ?<f IXlw ^eftao 



STATE OF ILLINOIS. 1 

SECOND DISTRICT J I^ JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 

of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this -day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty-. 



Clerh of the Appellate Court 



(•> 




I \l - \^ 

'}© it noiaori::;cr8di ""imt| to-^t:|i Qa tho <^t]i day of itae, 
A» D. 194^, certain ;|rooe0a|ncfl '^©rl lad and Wd'2^B imd© and 
©ntorod of record b^f said Cinart, aiad^ whioh Is the followins, 

viz J 

I 
I^ the ^^pollat© Coxxrt of Iliinois, 

Second District . 

!>lay Tom, A. D, 1940 • 

laura Uuflooll, ) 

Plaintiff-AppQlleo, ) 

) Appeal froDi • 

vs« ) Cc«mty Court , 

) PooriQ County, 
Hew Torfe Life Insurance ) Illinois. 

Coopany, a corporation, ) 

'Dof0ntlant-^^PQllant# ) 

iiim t riiiTxm FOR riisi?AHi?rr . 

Tha oonoludixig part of the opinion filod in thie caso is, 
**The usual practice in such oasos v/ould bo for tJiio Court to 
rovers© and rormnd tho oan^. Both tho appellant and appolleo, 
in thoir printo 1 brief, have roquoatod this Court, that in case 
this judi^nont ^ms reveraod, not to reniand the casoj^ but enter an 
order of reversal and teminat© the litigation, Therefore, pur- 
fiusmt to tho requQSt of appellant and appolleo, tho Judgriont of 
tho trial oourt wiU bo reversed and tho roEiandin*^ order will 
b© caaittod. 

In the petition for rohoarinc; the appolloe quotes tho lattor 
part of our opinion and now urges that this staton^it be given 
further oonsid ..ration by this Court, tlmt t is Oourt has laisunder- 
stood the lanp^age used by tho appollo© in thoir briof • On ^f^a 17, 
of the briof of appellee wo find th© following,! **Th® verdict in 
this oase is only for §516 »00. Tho caso took throo days to try. 
Further ©xpenoa and additional tino is required of both partios 
by virtu© of this appeal. If this oase is revorsod and rssaanded 
for fiffiothor trial furthor oxponso, '//antod effort and delay \irill 
roBult to both parties, Th© dofondants in their briof in the 



^ t»l> rf*i udS so *^:?.^v-o* ,.t«l- IfcwvscjTOinofl ;H r.r 
.Glo/tiXII to i-a'oG : 






eaBO at ^tn&s ,:hujoO etri;r f^Jofiiii^^i bvad ,l©iT!tf •o;rnliq -iloiJiy nl 
to ^xi(?ir,ftirt e/W ,«»©XXoqqA boA tassISfyqqfi to *a©ir|;o!i oil^ oS &nnim 

^^^■^-^ or; , ^on'W \pt»xi Itos nolxtXqo rtijo lo ;M»q 

,VI e,^iM ito ,l#Xicf ijteriif al oeXX»qqj8 oilcf >ctf ^^w/ nrkAtmn^ ari^ boojfa 

«i ;?ol^T6y eif?" s.niiXiioXIot ori;t Sail 9«r MXIoqqa to lolad od^ Ic 

-rs^ o.t aicii^ c-emll jloo^ asm) oriT .OC^X^e wt -^Xno al mas aiii^T 

aal^-UBQ xI;fO(J lo bftf l«n©«r >?i *«!* jrftw»*iBiui baa ©oneqx© lerf^^itfr 



oonoluaine parai^rfipli state, * * * "D©t@ndant rospeotfully r®- 
quoBts that tliis Court tqvqtso the jud>::^Qnt of tlie trial court 
withoiit renand. Wo thorofore join with th© aofendant in its 
reciuest tlxat this case be r0versi«id outright or affimod, Th« 
defendant ccaapany arsuos at saae ?>.ongth al>out tiie wei/^xt of 
the ©vid0nO0, and wSiile this is tjarmeosssary in view of its 
r©qu«»t stated above, %m will givo t!^ Coctrt our views of th@ 
question, althoii^ish still join 'in suoh request," 

It Bsoius to US that the attom^^ for the appellee oould 
not here ©siprtjssed in th© English language raore oloarl|r a 
roquest of this Court that if tho easo was rovorsed, not to 
rocKind it. 

Th© petition for a rehoaring is hereby denied. 

(^signed) Fr@a G# Wolf©„ 

( Si^Qsd ) ^ . ^ ;r;s;an''LLin 11* Dg v o „ , ,„ 

(SimiQd) .Slainc Iluffraan 

tliOdOlMiad on the bq^ok as foUouvs! 

yiLSD Jun 5 194f) Justua L. Johnson Clerk Appellate Court- 
Second Diet,) 



j 

CMWO*» .■■.';.■. ■■ ■ i 

I 

.-^ -^ * - '. ^\ ■ 

I 

^.»4. » . '. 1 •. .4.,i ij> „. «- ■..;,_• ...N V .. i .^-•. «.,.... ji.... .»^«.^ .^N.V>^i«»^ 

0^1 lo weJnr f* ' '(i^ ._ ;jita ,«0n«jfclTO Mt^ 

, ,■ , ,'i Ao:r, :/!' fT*c>. ?Cfv*tK jlrir . ^ , tJct'TO i 

i 

_ ""'"^ ^^■^) ! 

I 
i 



AT A TlilRII OF TH:^ APP3LLAT.1] COURT, 



Begun and held at 0tta'7a, on Tuesda7, the 7th daj'' of Hay, in 

the year of our Lord one thous^jid. nine ^umdred and forty, 

I i /"" "^* I ^ 

within and for thd Secoild District l)f tje %tate of Illinois: 

Present -- The Hon. JRED Gl '.'oi,F3, iT|sid:pg Ju^ice 
Hon. IL.lIITM'l-iUFFn'JT, Ji|sti^ \^^ 

Hon. tRiUTlLrlllT R. DOVE, |Jus|ice 
JUSTlJs L. JoiIIISOIT, GleA 

I i ■ t '^ A ff ^ ^ •'^ f"--' 

E. jf '.'EI.tIr, Sheriff I »1 t .. „ ; X^rlo r> ^ 



BE IT RSKSIIBERED, that afterwards, to-v/it: On MAY 1 5 1S40 
the Opinion of the Court v/as filed in the Clerl:'s Office of 
said Court, in the v/ords and figures follovang, viz: 



am. no. 9535 agenda no. 27 

Ilf THJ'; APPSLLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, 
SECOHD DISTRICT 
FEBRUARY TERI-T, A.D. 1940. 



JOim HOmiSH, et al., 



AppeUants, ) 

} 
vs. ) AJ?PEAL FROM OKCUIT COURT 

) LASALL3 COuifri. 

A^IHIRIGAK SILICA CORPORATION,) 
ot al . , } 

Appellees. ) 



IIUFITwAN - J. 

Appellee BeaXtj and appellants were interested in enterprises 
wlilch ovmed and produced crude sand in La^^jalle county, Beatty and 
some of his associates conceived the idea of bringing together into 
one organization all of the crude sand pits ih said county. Pursuant 
to such plan, Beatty eiiployed one !Cye Johnson to procure from the 
various ovvTiers of crude sand pits in said county, options to purchase 
their property. During the year 1927, Johnson went about among the 
ovulars of crude sand pits in that county, of vs^-hoEi appellants were a 
part, and in furtherance of the plan of ?eatty as above indicated, 
procured from such ovmers options for the purchase of their property. 
It anpears that appelleints and the other op;ners understood the plan 
of Beatty to brin,: these pits under one organization. 

In the following year, 192.^, Beatty in consummating?; the above 
plan, caused to be orr^aniaed the .Aiaerican Silica Corporation, vmdor 
the lav.'s of i^eleware. The corporation was duly licensed to transact 



:c;^9 .ow .Hao 



VJ. 



(X,'. 



f '• t •< ff" 


ii-^i:. 


:ii:c 


^cfni>Il9qqA 






? _ -■. ^. rt r r . , 











.1 - Wi. 

JbiiB ,:qcJ^j6ee •xiJ'iii'oo elldi^J at fixcae eJbifio J&eoufionq i)iifi bemio rioiiiw 
od-nl aeil;t9ao* aiiJfcsrtiirf to aefii axl^f i>©y±9on o eoJ-Bloosafi aJtri "io emoa j 

rf^nBWQiJ/J ."l&ajjoo b.lBB A.t acHq ftrijae ebtno 6d* to lis flo±d"BSiflBS!to ©dq ^ 

1 
orit jjo-xl eii/oom ot rroeorioli e^Jl ^ao iiaxolqiaa x^^3©a ^a£Lq rioira of j 

i 
I 

J3 eiew BctxiBlIsqqB jnoilw "io ,"^d-xij;;oo i&di al ^tlq ba&a &bino lo Btssmo ^ 

,£;8tB0±f>nJ: evod.a es -^j-d-jsea to xteXq eild- lo ©orxBT:9ri;fTj[;l xti 5rr.s ^Jxaq ^ 

i 
.Y^ieqotq iJiexid- to ©asitoiifq ©riif lol Biiol^fqo Qieawo doinai ao«t |)»^ifOOfq ' 

xislq erit l>ood^a3el>xuf artenwo T;©rid^o srl* firLSj Bd-/isXIsqqB d-sxl^ aiB©q 

.a.olt&sloB^'XQ eno lefixu; eJlq oaericf snX?^ od' -^;t{)'BaS 1M 

0VOf:f» QAi salitj3Wi»xmnoo al y^'I^a^S s^^iSCX fisex gnlvoXXol ©rio' kI ' 

tobasi ,fio.t*fiioqioO aolXIS flooXnainA ax[d"^®sXiiJBaio atf ocT SecjjfiO ,iii»X«[ i 

cJ-OBsiDS'id' od- fiesxiaoiX x^^ sbw aold'aopq^oo . exIT, .©istyeXe^l "lo bwbX ori^J i 



business in the State of Illinois. The nain office vra.s in Chicago. 
Soon after the organisation of the corporation, the Board of Directors 
met in Chicago, v/hen Beatty vms elected President . At a later day 
a resolution was adoptou. to anend the certificate of incorporation to 
change the capital stock from one hundred riiares of no par value, to 
65,000 shares, of which 5>000 shares v;erc to l^e preferred stock having 
a i>ar value of -ilOO per share, and 60,000 shares to be conu-ion stock 
having r.o par value; and f^urthar, that the corr!Tn.on shares ni^ht be 
Issued by the corporation for services rendered and that the same 
should be deened fully paid stock and not liable to assess:~ient . 

At a subsequent laoeting of the Board of Directors, Beatty pre- 
sented tne proposal of I-fye Johnson offering to troiLsfor to the corpora- 
tion the oJ)tions he had taken on the crude sand pits in I.aSalle county, 
axiong which were those forming the basis of appellants' claims. The 
proposal ?;£s based upon the consideration that for said options Johnson 
was to receive 43,327 shares of commor' stock, 400 shares of preferi'ed 
stock, and /10,000 in cac-rh. This proposal v^ras accepted and the 
options duly assigned to the corporation. It then beca-'^^e necessary 
that the cor; oration float a |.1,000,000 bond issue in order to pay 
for the property covered hy the options. 

It appears that the 43,32? shares of coxniijon stock ;vhich constituted 
a part of the consideration to Johnson, were not issued in his name; 
and that 19,992 sharos of stxch stock v/ore issued to Beatty and the 
fciHHaEiE balance to otliar persons. 

The new venture did not prove to be a flnancia.1 success and the 
corporation went bEmkmpt, At the tine of such banJcruptc^/-, appellant 
Kohnor had (1750 otill due hiii, A. D. Perry (nov/ deceased) had 
|11,3S7.50 due hiia, ^Tred Scherer (nov; deceased) had &28Ul-^2 due him, 
and llels li'ruland had :i)8c?C1.84 due hin; all upon the purchase price 
for their sand pits as fixed in the option agreenents taken by Johnson. 

2. 



.osBoJtxIO xil ear eolfajo aljsm edT ,atoatlLl lo ed-fli^S eil^ al eaenlajjcf 

ot iioIJsnoqxoonl i©o ©rl; oaa aaw xiotJ'i/Xoasn b 

o& ,©w.Cbt ijsq on tc ooila IjsJ-lqBO ©xlJ agruarfo 

ioota nomnioo ©d o* B9t»dti 000, Od bus ,«^X9fia t»<£ 00X# ^« swIbv ib4 s 
ed ^«[^±0i aeaBrie coawoo arl^ tt>Ai ,iaxli*rurt r 

cwnBe eri* '.ftoivcec ',0*1 aal^js^ioq-roo oxlcf "c^ b&uaaX 

,oCte:'3iREa' .-.ix i^on fi.:.3. aCoocfe b©fi»»fc sd oXiforia 

-e-sq x^'^**!^ ,aT;o^«wTii.ti to fixsoQ edit oeetfLti /s iA 

■jBioqioo s/lif od- a©l«utjj«cf od" sxiloie^to noexiiioli ex^^ ^»3 Iseoqoaq 9di b0iaBa 
:^f«;o© ftllBSftil at ttddq 6«ffta ©fijrco eit* iro ztoatBt &biI sriBnoxt^o eii: 

©rlT .EflLtelo ♦ aj^iijaXXegqB to Blacd siii gaiflrio'l ©aoalf oiavr doidw j^Oi.iii 
oamloX aaol^cro Blaa if aot&o'X9btB' tr i)oe£d bj3w leaoqoaq 

•-..n; j'.u-' .:.ajo^;>r>jB BJBW 1"!:. o al OOOjOX-t fJxrs- ,3fOOJte 

<.-j.iw.:c;a©©it .©^!!Tjao®<f nd/l* d-I ,m • •* 'r~- .':a3a XX06 affoi*qo 



. + .-^.r,.-w/ 



.' ... , ^,- J-. ...u.. . i.>.LJc«'ioiioo ©Af d'Bd.d' 



,n.t:..ttd'ajaioe .doijdw iooite noncaao 1:o oanans VSCiCJi erf* d'/wlit attseqqB di ' 

jfiiiflrc aid at fcayaetl .d'oc ertew ,rEoeado'E 0^ Lotjc-io'^Jiciiot edi lo ^laq, b I 

Oiler t;i:n •'/d-.t^aS od" Bewaesl s-r^w i'oodis do: .. S?^*?! fsdi im» ■■ 

■' i 

Oil* Ji/iB aasooxre XsloflBfll^ a ©tf od- stot't t^n biS> wwiaer wen srIT I 

dTLBlIsq.qfl j-^fod-qortjfOBd xlojtjfa '5;o 9nkf ^^t . -.UTrfoBrf ^tneKr tioti£noqi!&o « 

JbBxl (f)eas©oof> wore) vtcis'^ . .isid dirfi XIldR 0$VX$ Jhejl-^sniloH 1 

eoiiq fiBfidorcctq,eAt aoqu IX& iBihittJ 3^ fiuajtl dcBlm:^' al^ I 

.noanrlot y^ fislacf edne/aseirvfi acHqp -odi al bexlt sub silq fixiaa "xledS "XOl 

..S 



This suit, resulted, wherein appellants seek to recover their 
claims on the grounci that their properties upon which «rohr>.son took 
the options, v/ere r.rossl^'" overvaluod and that In consoniirj.ice, the 
stock isstxed therefor, of -//hich Beatty received 19,99S shares, could 
not be considered as fijl.!;/ paid; and that the act of the corporation 
in issuing such stock and paying the i;-10,000 cash for the options, 
was fraudulent and in violation of the rights of appellants as cre- 
ditors of the Amerii^'an Silica Corporation. The bill asked for an 
acccuntlng to deterriino the correct value cf the stock, and alleged 
that the stock eeiO cash granted to JoJuison for ths options on the 
sand pits was of a much greater value thsai tho options were worth. 

Appell£i:ats claiia to bo creditors of the corporation -/.'ithin the 
conteraplation of tho trust fund theorj'-. Appolloos contend that the 
capital stock of the corporation Vfas in no y;e.j the basis of any 
credit extended to it by a:ipollants, or that appellants placed any 
relianr^e upon its capital sti-ucture; and that appellants' convej~ances 
of their send pits to the corporation were raade piirsuant to the options 
ttiey had ;:-iven to Jolmeon as Beatty's agent, v/hich appellants allege 
contained a fictitious, orcessive and fraudulent value. 

The alleged azcessive and fictitioiis valuations placed by 
appellants upon their properties constituted the consideration the 
corporation wrs to pay therefor, and no doubt served as a basis upon 
which it paid Joluison, Appellants ur-;7e that 3j.nce such valuations 
svere excessive and fictitious, the act of the corporation in '^ranting 
the consideration to Johneon, was a fraud upon them as creditors of 
the c o r p o rat ion. 

Tt i." ur^ed hj appellees that a trust in favor of creditors of 
a corporation ^vlll not be enforced against stockholders in the manner 
appell.ants now seek to do, when the creditors had full kno7/ledr:e of 
the arran.ger!ient urged as the ground for their recovery. Appellees 

3. 



noIJ*jD'icrtoo ©rid" Ito 3-op oriiJ" 

,anof:}^cf6 od* mot Ag^h Oor . itreBl til 

-oro 

iijB "lot i>e;:{Qf? ICtcT edt ..rtol:: 

arW ao eflol.*c '<: roaiiriot o;^ ftatrflis daeo brj-< at.'.* 

oitcf ^sxlcf Bn«:tftod ar 

©sefl 

f>d& aot:'-"-'^ '■■ ■■■ ;,-.>.•.■..• 

■"■"~'-" '--*'•■■• ■,.'-^ .•.oc-. jdri/ri6 on .-_.-. ,. 

^x.-. ^ ..V. .,7i oo,til« d-iJldJ^' ft- ~ ■■' ^■-" 

^O 3'iOilh?'.10 CB msi L . ■ .. 



dvlae'.i-'.v:rs ce^'^xxf. 




,,=.._-v^ jtotfrr E.- 




.^jr-q 0- saw tro' 


1 


Tr-v r:,r,'.~ f, J..U 


:'T? 1 




■,.i- 1 



, jt. 



furt.'ier urge that the trust fund theory is intended for the heneflt 
of bona fide creditors of a corporation v-Hxo have extended credit 
thereto in reliance upon itsprofessed capital, and has no a* .plication 
to persons vdio associate theciselves 't/ith a promoter and a promotion 
scheane such as we find in this case. 

We have set cut the tneory of appallaxits and appellees v.'ith 
respect to this case. The cause was heard on stipulation of the 
parties, and the trial ccsurt disiaissed the bill for v/ant cf equitj.' . 
Appellants bring this appeal urging, for reversal, the ground above 
indicated. 

The "briefs of the parties are comprehensive upon their respective 
theories of the caso. «e see no good purpose to he served by a dis- 
cussion or roviev; of the autnoritics Miere cited. The question here 
to i;e deterirJ-ned is vvhetner the trial court was correct in accepting 
appellee's theory of the case. 

It appears that appellants knew of Beatty's plan to bring the 
sand pits together luider end contrcl and ownerEhlp, as v^^s done, when 
they executed their options to Jo:aii30n, Appellants aver that such 
options were grossly es-oessive, and fictitious values placed upon their 
property. .Vhen the plan v/as consuEuaated and chs corporation paid 
Johnson for the options, appellants claim that such payment was in ex- 
cess of the value of their properties, and therefore a fraud upon them, 
and that the stock which -#as issued to Beatty from that paid to Johnson 
was -vvithout con-iideration, and that Beatty should be held liable for 
the then value thereof. 

It is stipulated that ^jil, 250,000 was paid by the corporation to 
the various persons inttirested in the sand pits (including appellants) 
and based upon the prices as fixed in the options. Courts cannot n^nd 
a bargain because it proves to be improvident or unfortunate. It 
appears in this case that if appellants \«/3re injured, they were the 

4. 



dxfieao ije£)i«txe fty«fi orfw coxcJ-fl*toq.r:oo b lo eaocfxiflrto ^blt &ao€ loj 

^..J.vO/io: ;, J J.' aovles- as oolw aac J, 

;.c^Iw ee©ileci(ifl bm «3'aoXX©<iq;A to > d'jes © ' 1 

evld-osqeai xieild" aoqj/ avxexiaxieaqiaoo ariii eai^iijq eiicf lo eloiicf ©xil' i 

-cifi ;.. ^d x>9vae« ©tf oj- eaoqijvq^ boo^ oa »ea o eolioexIi:i 

eitid xtoJid'aaop eilT eusM^ e©l^iaciii^x(.e dxi</ jlu v<«tlvt»'x ic aoJta|u:r4|!| 

I'.isi.iqsooa ci ctparioo «aw Jii/00 Xiixio z. ieiilanfec^e^ ©4 o^ 

nailv; ,eiioi. k.s^^ aii ,i;xii2i3awQ f)£U3. Xo^jTiioo emo ^i^Lssu ic^iJi^oJ" ft*l<l ^XIM^ 

'owa J^fixW isvB a^caXXsqqA .nr. .; BaalSiio tlssi^ b&tutyexB x&Afl 

■;. -ji-j uoqii fieofiXq a©i;XBT auoliflit)i'X 0.;^. ^aviaaeoz© -^XBaoos ©law anox;J"qa 

•''laq tiQxiBrsjoqTiQO oxij X^ax; ts^Bauawenoo aaw - '- ^' " •- ' .-;:f:i9goi(X^] 

-..-- .iX ajBW d-flSJiPCiBq .f"- ' ' 'fJ- ffiXsXo aau£(XXa<ii|i> ,>^..x.-...y,v ..- . ...., ucaxuloTi^ 

ixasxld- aoq,i; fii/ai'i js ©■: . ^.-..^ foius jepi-iiaqot^ liaxio lo ©uJow > -: 'io eeey 

noanxIoX oJ gI'sg vtj^ri.; j:^ct:1 vj\;.:,ed j-;' Lo;:jr^i aov^ i!;:J!:ri.^ ifooa ..^^dd' J&ca,: 

io'; .. i)laaoo ^xrodtfxvf 8««|| 

.laeiedc)' owXbv ncd# ©ri*^ 

oJ aoia-ii'ioqioo eiii ijcf ijiflq aBW Q0O,O?S,X^ ;^aild• Se^sIuqiitE . ! 

(ad'iujXXsqqB aril 611. [on/.) ad-iq bant aiiJ^ jtxi Jiy»ta©a©J'fii aaoa'xeq suol'ier 9At 

fixifci docffteo »it^v :.l.iqa ©xU ni j>9xtl aA aealiq axlii' xcoq^ J[)ea;3cf boMf, 

i 
dxxaJiXYOiqiaX ©d o4" aavoiq il ©auasatj alBsxacf a^ 

o ;j- ;>-,.-nv ^:snJ ,btoX'-fi.ni: s?;©w aJ-xiiiiXaqqB IX, cfsrid- ©a;30 aXdiJ" cX a^eeqq*- 



arbiters of their ov/n injiaries. A bad bargain cannot be turned into 
a good one by a subsequent lawsuit. 

We are of the opinion that tho trial court properly disriissed 
the bill for v/ant of equity. The decree is tiierefore affirmed. 

Decree affirmed . 



, >iun^&l :^r-\upeB<SuH fl y^ o^o 6003 
beaah ixiiqo <inli lo otb ©V.' 



STATE OF ILLINOIS, ] 

Vss. 
SECOND DiSTEiCT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 

for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Eecords and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 
of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 

Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 

in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 

hundred and thirty- 



Olerh of the Appellate Court 



40422 
HATTIS GABL, 

V, 

FRAi-^K GABL and AimA 
Intervening Petitioner 



AMA FOHK, 
HATTIE GABL, 



Appellee I 



Appellant. 






APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT, 
COOK GOUETy* 

305 I.A. 620 



MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 
The only question originally involved in this proceeding was 
whether Prank Gahl or his wife. Hat tie Gabl, was the owner of two 
first mortgage notes for $1,700 and $2,000, respectively, and two 
separate trust deeds securing same^ said securities having been 
received by Prank Gabl as part of his share of his mother's estate. 
Hat tie Gabl had not been living with her husband at the time he 
received these securities or for some time prior thereto. After 
same were delivered to him she returned to live with him as his 
wife, but left him again some time thereafter. The then attorney for 
both Frank and Hattie Gabl, who is the attorney for appellant, Hattie 
Gabl, on this appeal, instituted separate actions in her name on 
May 31* 1935* to foreclose the aforesaid trust deeds. In each of 
the foreclosure suits Frank Gabl filed an intervening petition, 
which alleged inter ali a that the note and trust deed involved 
therein belonged to him and were wrongfully withheld from him by 
his wife. Hattie Gabl filed sworn answers to the intervening peti- 
tions, in which she alleged substantially that she acquired the 
securities involved as the result of a contract entered into between 
herself and her husband. Both cases were referred to a master on 
the issues formed by the intervening petitions and the answers 



ss^^o^ 



V 



»ITiroOO JiOOO 

029. A.I 50 8 



( V 




.V 
AMHA bOB JQAO IKAfH 



.■•i9noWl;f9l srilnevTsd^fll 



^ «MD^ AHHA 

.V 



.TOTOO SDHT -^O HODfl^O SHT OaflaVIJaG ^lAVlJJUa aOITBUX OMiaioaKq ,flM 
^Bfr snlSeeooiq Srld^ al berloval xllanlslno nolJaawp xino eriT 

CM-J lo isnwo 9xU asw ^Icf«£) slJd^aH ^tll* elxl lo IcfeO :fflj8i^ neufc^exiw 
owJ- i)nj3 ^xlsvictosqasi ,OOO^Si> baa 00\^L^ io1 e&toa egBS^iom iBill 

.»Ji5;ta© a'^arWois siri lo ©ruaxla eJ:xi lo *i*q cs IcfaO Jiruji"? -tcf bovleoert 

ad saoiv sxii Js; JbOBtfejud nsfl xIcMw gnlviX xiQ»d ;tofl bari XcfeO sJtiJeH 

iscflA .o:^9'i9xW aoliq acil^t saioe lol io e elJ-liwoeg eaeil^f fcovlsooi 

Bid a^ iiLUi ri;t±v' fjvll o;t benaj;j;f9rK Mie mM o4 bei»yJ:I<?Jb eiew aax«e 

-;ol Ysnioid-fi neii* aifE , i»J^ljaensri;t aaxl^ emos nlaaa aJUl ;tl»I ;txi<f ,9lLl:w 

ulJ^^iili ^J-njsIIsqqa lol Ajwx^oicfa &di el orfw ^IcTbO •li^feH fcxia alnBi^ il^ocf 

no eflian lexf ni exiold^oa ©cfsrjsqsB fced-ifcMJ-enl ^Iseqqa alrf* xio ,Icrfla 

lo riDij© ill .abeef) ^ajjriJ fciiseeioljB eycW eaoloonol oJ- t^£^-^ t-C£ XJsM 

^xioJtctl;}^©q sxii^3vi©;tnJt ns ^elil Iq'bC alna^ ai^jtwa eiji^eoloeiol aricf 

Tfcf ctJLri ffiDil Maxlfictlw xlliflsaotn eisw fcxua mtrf ocf bssnolscf cisisjci^f 

-id'eq saixiov'icJal s^ oS eiawBiiB aiowa Jbslll Icfai) Bliisii .allw eM 

©ri;!' iiieiJti/poB 9ds :fadi x^l&lSa&izxiuc boaellB ©ria dotsSn at. ^&aoli 

asmifsxS oial bdieiae ioaittioo 3 lo llusei 9d.i 3jb Aevlovni eoWlii/ooe 

no iBiaam & oi bsiisltsi srisw a»ejso xWoQ .bxuscfsxixf isxl boa llea^sxl 



-2- 

thereto. On March 27, 1937» by leave of cotirt, Hattie Gabl filed a 
verified amendment to her answer theretofore filed in each of the 
foreclosure proceedings, in which amendment without deleting or with- 
drawing any of the allegations of her original answer she averred that 
the notes and trust deeds were delivered to her as a gift by her husband, 
Thus her sworn answers as amended presented two inconsistent (not 
alternative) versions of the manner in which she acquired title to 
the notes and trust deeds from her husbaiid. Thereafter Frank Gabl by 
a written assignment sold, transferred and assigned to his sister, 
Anna Funk, "his title, right and interest" in all of his personal 
property, including and specifying the aforesaid notes and trust deeds 
and two additional notes. Gabl died Jxily 4, 1937, and, his death 
having been suggested, Anna Funk \inder her assignment was substituted 
as intervening petitioner in his place and stead. After a full hearing 
the master filed his report finding that the assignment of Anna Punk 
was valid and further finding the issues in favor of the intervening 
petitioner. A decree was entered in accordance vflth the findings and 
recoiimendations of the master. Hattie Gabl appeals from this decree, 
assigning as error that said decree is contrary to the law and the 
evidence. 

Anna Funk, the appellee, heretofore filed a motion "to affirm 
the decree of the covirt below" because of the failure of appellant to 
furnish an abstract of the record "sufficient to show the errors 
relied upon by said appellant, as required by the rules in that 
behalf." This motion was reserved to hearing. The affidavit filed by 
the attorney for appellee in support of said motion avers "that he has 
examined the transcript of the record therein on file in this court, 
and, has examined the document filed herein as an abstract of that 
record, and that he knows the contents thereof j that the said document 
pxirporting to be an abstract of the record does not contain any abstract 
of the pleadings in said cause, or any abstract of the master's report, 
or any abstract of the objections filed to the master's report, or 
any abstract of the decree rendered in said cause, or any abstract 



M b^llt XdijO QliisH ^iiiioo lo tnrasl \(i ,^t?-t »^S do-mU nO ,oi9i€uii 

6di lo doB9 al r.oXll Bioloseied^ lawsxiB isd o;}^ ;taetffi£>iidaijs beillner 

-lijlw lo aol^elofc JwoxiiJtw (tnaabawBa ilolriw nl ^egfliboeooiq enx/toloaiol 

d^Ad^r bsiisYB aula nswaxiB IaoIsIio lAxi ^o uaoiiaiolLn »dt lo xoa ^tVBtb 

iscSsud i9fl x«^ -^"iis a ae leri o;J beit»vJtI©b aiiwr 8X>eet i^axrt^t iirus as^on wl^t 

ion) iaQiatanooal ost& betstoseiq bBbnoaiB sa atewoflja irxcnra i«ri axiriT 

oi)^ el^xJ b«7ijjpoB ade dolitv al iBoa&m adi lo anolaisr iBVliBaiailn 

Xd IcfsD itnai^ aacflfiSierfT ^boAdzud ted m»r1 absefc J-ajJiJ baa B9ioa 9di 

^^leiatB &td oi beailaeis baa bBtiel&aati ^blos ;ta9saa^t&&B n»d';t±'xw b 

Xenoaneq aJtri lo 11q al **tt9teial ba& id^li ^9lili aid" j2(flx/2 anoA 

ibo&b iSiiJii baa z&ioa bl&adiolB »di ^l\1i:o9qz ba» yilbhloal ^xiimnoiei 

d;t»9b alii ^bOB «\£^I «> xlul bslb IdaO .as^oc iBXiol^tlbJbB ami ban 

b9iiJili&due z&m ctaacaalaaa a«xl leboii iiox/^ «aaA «i>«Jadasiie xt9»d a^lvad 

aol^ised Ilxfl s i9i\k .bae^e baa so^Iq eld at I9aclilt9q sx[la9V'ie:tnl aa 

sLcuj^ aaxtk lo d^naffiosi^ea adU^ ^adJ* ^ixlbxiil J-ioqsn aJtd belli la^aaxQ 9di 

^iii&yiBial adi lo loval at adxraal ad^ jjolbnll lediixjl bas bll&y aaw 

bnij stsalboll 9di ditir asxssbaoooa ai bsaa^na eaw aanoab A .^saol^l^eq 

^e&iddb aldi aoiI alasqqa IdaO 9l;}^d'aH .na^aaot 9d;t lo anol^sbnaiiLuooati 

ed,i ba& wal eidd- oi \iaiiaoo al oenosb blsa :tad:i loiis aa axxlaslaaa 

.sonsblva 

atillla ocf** acliom & belli .saolotsiad ^oallsqqii odi ,3lru/? aaoA 

o^ cfnallsqqa lo siullisl adJ^ lo aawaoed "wolod i^woo ariJ lo sanoob edi 

B^ioiio odi woria o;f cfflsloillJLfa " baoosi airi;t lo ^oarx^acTa xia rialflixrl 

d^ad;? nl aalin &di x«f bsali/pei aa ^dflsIXeaq* blaa x^f aoqxr bsiXoi 

Xd baXll ,f Ivsb Ilia ©ilT ,3jnl«is©i( od bevisaai aaw nolcfoa alriT ".IXsdad 

asd 9d d^idJ" eisvB nolJoin bi.^r; lo cf'ioqqi/a nl saXXeqqa ^ol x^^'^oJ'd^* ®^ 

^d^iuoo 8ld;f nl ©Xll no alaiedi bidooi odi lo ^qlT^Danaai »di banicisxe 

i&di lo ioan^i&ds an as aleisii bsXll J-aanujoob add bealssze aad ^baa 

iaBmu:>ob blsa add- d-^d;f tlo©isd,d ziasJaoo add awonaf fid }&d:f boA ^bioosi 

io&ii^ds xxta xiladnoo don asob biooo-s arid lo d"oaad^sda na sd od s^ld^ioqii/q 

,dioq9'5L e.'ieiBsm odd lo doartdada yji& to ,9airao blaa al eanlbaaXq add^ lo 

10 ^dioqai a»r£»;t8Sffi add' od baXll aaoUoQldo &d^ lo doaidada y^us no 

iosiis.tx& x^^ to ^aei/uo blae al betsbasn: seioab add lo doaid'ada voa 



of any documentary evidence offered in said causej and, that said 
docuiiient omits part of the transcript of the oral testimony given 
in said cause, and states in altered form the transcript of other 
oral testimony given in said cause. Affiant further states that said 
docmuent purporting to be an abstract of the record in said cause is 
wholly Insufficient to present the issues in said cause intelligently 
to any mind, ■«**" 

The attorney for the appellant filed written objections to the 
allowance of appellee's motion, which stated inter alia "that the 
affidavit attached to said motion, contains allegations which are 
far fetched and are without merit, and are made as excuses offered to 
harass the attorney for the appellant and to confuse the loinds of 
the Honorable Judges of the Appellate Court; that the very purpose 
of the present practice act on which are based the Rules of the 
Appellate Court, adopted on April li>, 1937> ar® to limit long, useless 
and expensive procedure, followed by large printers bills in briefs 
and abstracts, and to limit the discussion to novel state of facts, 
or decide only material questions and issues, or decide new or un- 
settled questions of practice. Under Rule 1 of the Rules of the 
Appellate Court the attorney for the appellee could ixave been dili- 
gent, not indolent, and could have directed th® Clerk of The Circuit 
Court of Cook County, 111., to prepare a praecipe of additional parts 
of the record, for his own special use, wMch he failed to do," 

Examination of the abstract filed by appellant discloses, as 

averred in the affidavit filed in support of appellee's motion, that 

the pleadings and the decree have not been abstracted at all and that 

the master's report and the objections filed thereto have not been 

fairly and fully abstracted. 

Rule 6 of the Rules of Practice of the Appellate court provides, 

in part, as follows: 

"In all cases, the party prosecuting an appeal in the Appellate 
Court shall furnish a coiaplete abstract of the record, referring to 



bJbse iadi ^baa {9Zii&o Jbxjja nx Deiello ©onafaivs \i:i3aeaijoou ipi* Jo 

aevls xfloail;te«d Into BiiS lo :^qiyicaiaani Hii lo ^taq atts^o iaBouoob 

lad^o lo iq,lioziiAii sAt anolL be'HiilM til s^oia^is ba» «»sx;40 AJUa at 

bl&a iadi a^cts^c lediiisl tORlJIA »99XJ60 btn^ al jsoris '^«i£tUa9,t Iaio 

si ezuBO bljis at bioor-ii 9di lo :fosiiia(iM aa td 9i :iat:fio<liiiq iaems^ob 

"*** .bflJta xa« o^ 

adj d-acy-" ftJULa tfn^fal h^&a^s dol/Iw ^rtoi;to« a'o©iX»qqa lo eonawollja 

9a£ ifoldw sixoi^saeXIiS nalaiaoo ^aot^ou bl^^ ai b^doaiiB ilv&blllA 

ai beiello asaiioxd bb 9baa bis btu \itit»ak ;^VQii:i]:it eia baa bBdoi9^ lat 

to Qbaha odi sexrlrtoo o:t ba» ta»SS9qq» etdi lol i[afliico:t;f£ edi ««|ivd 

eeoqiijq x^iev dd^ :luii {itiSJoO •i &il»qq,A . tli lo e^s^jif^ eXdanoaoU ed^f 

9d;t lo esIirH sd;)^ batsd sia ileiifw ao i^oa 99lioaiq. iauaaiq, sxU lo 

eeeleeif ,suoI ;JJtiaiI o;f ei« ,V£^I tCi I-tuqA oo ^•i'qoJbs ^^rmoO ©^JfillaqqA 

elal'xcf xxl slllcf ario^niiq ^-iisl x^ btmollol ^wruib^oo^q vfls.aeq;x.9 btia 

^Siioa.1 lo e^scfa Xevoa o^ ttolauirttulb mii jrlmJtl o4^ l>a«^ ^a^ofii^ccfa fuxB 

-riir ao wen Bbto&b to ^^Amsai Aob tusolinmsp lMXie:ism %lao eblo&b 10 

&di lo soluil mLi lo 1 »JUrH ie£>i3[U .«fil;^99iq lo anoJt^^ssxjp l>eJ[:>'^9a 

-IlUb need syjad i>XjEfo9 9i$XX»q(C« 9iii lol xaa'XQcr;^^ 9di iiitso'O eljsXXeqqA 

iiji/OTlG axil lo }{i9X0 atLt b9;j-037ii> sTad bluoo btu ^^nsXobal ioa «^a«a 

ec^'isq X«nol^lbb« lo dqxoejsnq b ftiuq*^ x>i «.XXI ,x^^w<^^ ;2looO lo iiisoO 

'*.ob at bsXlftl 'srl xiolffw ^saxr Xslo«f8 flwo aid 10I ^boooei ed;t lo 

*fid^ ,iioi^offi a'ssXXsqqs lo :^ioqqsj& ai baXil J-lVjsbllls extf dJt bsTtrreva 

^«ifi lucuB TJlA tA bB:io8tt!idB t»9(i cfon avsit •eiofifb ed^ fsoA ^unM^&lq. odS 

aewi iOEi &raiiiii9t»ii& beLXI iaokio@l(i9 eoU baa ^loqs'x z^jXBSsaa Bdi 

^eeblvo-iq tiisoo sialleqqk «(d;t lo ©sl^oanH lo e&luS. adj^ lo &lui' 

:ewoXXol «s »^nacf nl 



the pages of the record by ntunerals on the luargin, Where the record 
contains the evidence it shall he condensed in narrative form in 
the abstract so as to present clearly and concisely its substance. 
The abstract shall be preceded by a complete index, alphabetically 
arranged. Indicating the nature of each exhibit and the page where* 
it may be found, and giving the names of the witnesses and the 
pages of the direct, cross and redirect examination, Tiie abstract 
must be sufficient to present fully every error relied upon, and 
it will be taken to be aceurate ajad sufficient for a full under- 
standing of the questions presented for decision unless the opposite 
party shall file a further abstract, making necessary corrections or 
additions. Such further abstract -iay be filed If the original 
abstract is incomplete or inaccxirate in any substantial part," 
(Italics ours.) 

The abstract filed lierein was not merely incomplete and 
inaccxarate as to some substantial part of the record but was incomplete 
as to every substantial portion thereof. 

The appellant completely failed to abstract the essential 

portions of the record proper in clear violation of Rule 6, The 

purported abstract did not make a sufficient presentation of either 

the issues in the case or the errors relied upon for reversal. In 

discussing the failure of appellant to file a coiaplete abstract in 

Staude et al. v . Schumache r e t ^l. j I87 111. 18? , the court said 

at p« 188 t 

"The rules of this court require the party bringing a cause 
into this court to furjfdsh a cokiplete abstract or abridgment of tiie 
record, properly indexed, - such an abstract as will fully present 
every error and exception relied upon, and sufficient for the 
examination and determination of the case without an examination 
of the written record. In the case of Qibler v. City of liat t oon^ 
167 111. 18, we said (p. 22) j 'It is the duty of parties bringing 
cases here for review to prepare and file complete abstracts oJf 
the record in accordance with the rules, and such abstracts as we 
can safely rely upon. It is not our duty to perform tliis work of 
counsel, which, in detail, as to them is inconsiderable, but when 
imposed upon us is, in the aggregate, extreiuely burdensome, • 

"The decree must be affirmed for want of complete abstract, *-"-»*' 

In Hlckex v. City of Springfield ^ 208 111, 28, the court said 

at p, 29$ 

'•Rule 14 of this court requires the party appealing to furnish 
such axi abstract of the record as will fully present every error and 
exception relied on, and sxifficient for the examination and determination 
of the case without any examination of the written record, ifftoy* a 
li^anifest attempt has been made to coiuply vdth this rule and the abstract 
is merely defective, it will be accepted by the court as sufficiently 
presenting the matters in issue, but if the opposing party is not satis- 
fied with such abstract he may file an additional one and have the 
cost of the same taxed to the party filing the principal abstract, 
if the court^shall finally determine that the additional abstract was 
necessary. This right of the opposing counsel, however, has never been 
construed to justify the filing of an abstract which does not pretend 





. Ji. 




jaq 


SiiJ iO ' 




ftil^ ll&c'. 




': :.'E ,aiu 




a ai ;t' 




^.STX/O eO^J.. 


•>J ± / 



^loo-^rf ^rit *>i«ff»' «nt3^ijffi ?ff(t no zlBtBrnm ycf Jb^sooei »f(^ to a*s*'? •'^ 






ajolqjaoofli caw tfrrtf I)ioo«i ■t»ti.:f I0 iijsq iBl^nfiitctoc amoa o& bjs eJijowooBXil 

«fX ,c) «IwH lo aclJ&Lolv liselo nl leqoiq fiiooei &tii to zaoUtoq 

ledila to noxd&^fa&se'ffi ^naJtoillxre b a-^aa ioa bib ioBtS'cdB fcscfioqaijq 

al ,is<s'i9T8*i tot aoqv &b±I©i aprons eiri^ 10 azat) odt at asx/ael 9dt 

al iOBtisiis Svtelqfaoo s 9111. 03- ;fnBj.I»qqa lo etu/Ilel fid? artlBax/oali) 

fc^.,>i :?r«oo ©ii;t ^^Sl .III ^^81 , .Ij3 ;ta iQdoasx stloS, .v .Xa J-» ebjjscfa 

tOQl .q ^a 

ȣfcj 1.. : aJuU ooiii 

no' .iixs 

. , r .III ^ai 

i)±a« *ii/oo sxW ,8s ,111 80S ^i^s>21;m laco lo yj^IO .y JCOatolH al 

j^S: .q vJB 

xiaJaiiiA o.t ■■ ' '. aiiis lo ^*J, oXx/u" 

i)n*j *E©'jCT9 1 eriJ lo SoBii^da hb rloirs 

loJtcfsnlmis^&b ll^^ :;,ux:. ..cv ;.•; iiiria ,xi. 1.'. -pxe 

s «it)Mlir .ijioosi ." lo ncl * Yttfl :! lo 

i-OBi '^ '■■■.: - - -' . 

eiicf sviiri fciiii sno iBGoi^JlbbK xib sill yb^ ©^ J'oai;? 

4:- • ■ '. '" ' ■"' -.-•'.. -.._ . -. ....,..,. ^j. |5gxj.f. ■■-•J 

saw ilBnll . 11 



-5- 

to comply with rule 14, and thereby compel the other party to do 
what the appellant or plaintiff in error should have done, *** 

**The judgment of the court below laast fee affirased for want 
of a complete abstract," 

Appellee's motion was timely, having been filed on November 

28, 1938, and it should be considered as of that date. Since we 

reserved our decision on appellee's motion, she was compelled to 

file an additional abstract in order to protect her rights in her 

endeavor to sustain the decree. The additional abstract Esust 

therefore be eliminated from consideration in our determination of 

the question presented by appellee's motion. We are impelled at 

tills time to allow appellee's motion to affirm the decree because 

the abstract filed by appellant did not even pretend to comply 

with Rule 6, hereinbefore set forth, 

We have, however, notwithstanding that appellant's original 
and reply briefs are well nigh ^inintelligible, patiently and care- 
fully read them with as snich under stcuiding as they would afford 
and are of opinion that there is no substantial error in the 
decree, 

I'he decree of the Circuit court is affirmed for want of 
a complete abstract, 

DECHEB AFFIRHSD. 

Friend and Scanlan, JJ., concur. 



Ob o^ 3 jM »Iui xiaiw vlqmoo o^ 

*** . i _ _ ^ ;i«Iq 10 ia&lleqqA 9tLi i»dv 

Set:,.',' tcl b'itril'^%i ecf Aauia volsd ^ntsot) edS lo iaBtmibal wfT" 

'',i&B'%^e<i& ecJsilqxaoo e lo 

it>cfiftevo»l st.o b»I±l naed sniirAd ,Xl«6il^ aaw aolc^oa a»»»IIi&qqA 

•« eor . 7 ^b ^bAS to ss I>«rz«Mene9 »tf blaode it baa ^8£^I «8s 

lo fioid^arriffli^ej^efe Ttiro nl J!t»W««rebi8iioo bb<x) i)»{f«fll«ll» e«l ftio1»is/I;^ 

ia bdllsqjol 91b 3<f .noi^ea e*«»Ii*qq« -^tf fr*tfii«t»4q Aoi^^eeifp ed;}- 

»8xr8d«€r e«^9^b <^ri:t iB'xl')l« oi noiiom ti^emll^qqa vrolls o;t 8fiil;t eldi 

xLqmoo oi ba^i^iq n»r9 tea bib ta&ll»qqR \<i b«Ii1; iSRi^BtiQ mlt 

»diio1 Set 9i0l9dal&fd ,o »JjvH £iiv 

-e^BO fcng >cXd-a«WBq jelrflglXI&^nlmi ifsla 1L99 •« eldlitf xlqei £uia 

Mo'^ls bLatim X9di && ^albtif^ii nfbms dsam «« dHJx sat^Lt b&oi xiX^^ 

9xtt n.': — •"- L&l^ojiiteiSue on el eiari;? d-griJ aolnlqo 1» ©«« &«£ 

♦ ©sioei) 

'10 w*i.i.y,- ■ '•". ?.f •■•,>.v.. V. ;*.,.■... iv ^/w i« €i»'xo»b ©if'-' 



40517 



ALLEN iriDUSmiSS, Inc.^ 
a corporation, 

A9#§|^'ant, 



V, 



AMERICAS IL4IH & FELT 
a corporation, 

Appup-lee. 




'Ai^y, 




FR^ GIR^IT COURT, 
'COOeI COUNTY. 



MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAI^' DSLI¥BRED THE OPINION OF THE C0I3BT, 



This action was brought by plaintiff, Allen Industries, Inc., 
ag&inst defendant, American Hair & Pelt Company, to recover damages 
for breach of an oral contract alleged to iiave been made in November, 
1935* for the sale by defendant to plaintiff of '5,7^0,000 pounds of 
felting hair, approximately 25% of which was to be delivered in each 
of the four quarters of 1936, felth its answer defendant asserted a 
counterclaim for the invoiced price of divers shipments of hair made 
by it to plaintiff. In its reply to the counterclaim plaintiff 
admitted its indebtedness to defendant for tiie amount claimed therein 
but alleged as the reason for the nonpayment of same defendant's 
liability for breach of the contract pleaded in the complaint. After 
a trial by the court without a jury the issues were found in favor of 
defendant both on its counterclaim and on plaintiff's complaint* 
Damages of $25,9^5*53 (including interest) assessed against plaintiff 
on the counterclaim were paid by it in open court. Judgment was 
entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff on the latter »s 
complaint and the amendment thereto. Tliis appeal seeks to reverse 
that judgment. 

Plaintiff's complaint as originally filed alleged substantially 
that an oral agreement between the parties was entered into by their 
respective presidents, Allen and I7ilde, on November 5* 1935* under the 
terms of which plaintiff agreed to purchase and defendant agreed to 
sell 3,000,000 pounds of cattle hair and 750,000 pounds of calf hair 






^l^o*> 






.▼ 

( I.T'iA^liidb TJS*^ :& iA 

sdSdOsb levooai a> ^'crusqiaoO i^Is'? y> ilsE aaolreoA ^inabn^Job ^enJUsB 
^'lodittsvoK al ©bam nooc' ©vail o& JbegellB ;fOBi^floo laio ob "to dvsaid lol 

£ios© ni £59iDvlIsfi ©cf at 2j3w rfolrfw 10 a^^ xJ^dJamlxoiqqB ,i±«ri axiWIel 

B fisd^iessB d^xisMeteb lamzaa sit tSmu «6t?I lo ziaiiBtsp •xxrol dxl;t lo 

:^o£iH itsd to aclTisinqlria B'isvife lo soliq bsolovnl exf^t rrol arlBloi9;tni;oo 

ItlSalBlq mlsloiej^ncoo arit od" xl<l®'' 2^1 xil .llldrLtsIq o;t :tl x*^ 

fllsisxW ctoaLtfiXo iimo^aB efW lol jnabiislab oj^ asonJos^cfsbnJ: a^l b&iiiabA 

z^iasbael9b aciBS lo cfaecncsqnon txtf lol aoessn add' eb bsgells iud 

reitk .d^olBlqatoo 9rf;t at bsJoBelq ^oB^c^noo ©fW lo doa&id lol xillltfsil 

lo lov^l Hi biujol eriQw eaiiaal »xiJ^ X'^l fi ;J"ifOfWi:w Jixfoo sitt x<i l&tii » 

♦ JnJusIqffloo a » lli;^rLtBlq no boB Bit&l&i9iai}oo &it ao diod iOBbaslBb 

llUnljilq i&al&^e bsaasaaa iissiBiat anlfu/Ioni) £^.^-^,^2$ lo aesaaiBa 

8BW ^tnaiasbjjt .J- -moo aoqo ni it \d: btaq »i«w «JjaIoi»c)^m;o3 @di ao 

a^'ia^ial edi xxo lliJiLtsI<i d-snisgB boB ctniibasl&b lo iovbI at baisJxia 

aaisvo'x at ajiesa Xsaqq^j aixfT ,o;t9iail;t inaiabxiaalB arid' Jins ;tnlsIqiaoo 

.diiaoiabiJt d'jari't 
Xll&tia&izdisz be:^Bll& belli xll&al:^tio ajs jnlslqiooo e'lllJnlBl'i 

•xxaiW x^ oJai beisiae sbw eslJrtBq eri^ nadwjsd d'asicssiSB lano as ;tBff^ 

&ii.J ishms t^cW *v locfaovoH no ^sbUtV- bna xisXI^. ^ectn^blaQiq sviJ^oaqaei 

oj bseiaa d-njBbnelsb brta sajBilo'Ujq oi besiae I'liiniBlq xlolxlw lo amis';* 

itsd lXi50 lo Bbmroq 000^0^^ baa iL&d elii^o lo abiujoq 000^000^^ lies 



for delivery in 1936, 7^0,000 pounds of cattle hair and 187,000 pounds 
of calf hair "to Ibe ascribed to, and as near as might be delivered in" 
each quarter of 1936} that a price of 6-1/2 cents a pound was thereupon 
agreed to for the hair ascribed to the first quarter and that "the 

price of the hair to be delivered during the succeeding quarters of 

sum 
the year 1936 should be such^as was thereafter agreed to between the 

plaintiff and the said defendant;" that the hair ascribed to the first 
quarter was delivered end paid forj that plaintiff and defendant agreed 
on Jipril 28, 1936, that the price for the 937,000 poimds of hair 
ascribable to the second quarter should be 7-1/2 cents a pound and that 
said hair was delivered and paid for at the agreed price; that August 
26, 1936, plaintiff and defendant agreed "that the price of the hair 
ascribable to the third and fourth quarters of the year 1936 should be 
7-1/2 cents per pound," end that the hair ascribable to the third 
quarter was delivered; that on November 24, 1936, defendant refused to 
deliver the hair "ascribed to the fourth quarter" and thereby breached 
its contract; that plaintiff was obliged to purchase the amount of 
hair ascribable to the fourth quarter in the open market at a price 
of 5 cents a pound in excess of the price of 7-1/2 cents a pound 
stipulated by the parties in the agreement of August 26, 1936, and 
that by reason thereof plaintiff was daiiiaged to the extent of $50,000; 
that an unpaid balance of $24,140 reclined owing by plaintiff to 
defendant for hair delivered by it, which was ascribable to the third 
quarter; and that plaintiff offered to allow this araount as a set-off 
to the daxaages claimed by it. 

Defendant filed a verified answer which denied the agreements 
alleged in the complaint to have been entered into by the parties on 
November 5, 1935, and on August 26, I936, but admitted that an oral 
agreement was entered into in November, 1935, under the terms of 
which defendant was to ship 937,000 pounds of hair to plaintiff at a 
price of 6-1/2 cents a pound during the first quarter of 1936 and 
that that quantity of hair was delivered by defendant to plaintiff 
and paid for by the latter at the agreed price. The answer then 



abwjoq 000,\8l bOM vJUrf »liiAt) lo ai>m;oq 000,0^^ %^i^l al xneTlIsft lol 

"xxl JbeneviXdb 9cf ^txi^lm aii; laen sjb toft «9^ J^«lfl708« stf o^" Tilad llao Ito 

ttoqwe«t9ri;t esw btasoq a bSobo 1»\X-^ lo soiiq jb ^kcW ;^£^I lo tad^iBi/p does 

lo ziBiiBSJp sntb&«ooffe 9sli galiifb bartsTilsA «d od- iJtari arW lo eolaq 

00/8 

afi;t a99v;t9(f oi fi^easB <Ee^liiOi9^;t saw sbN^ox/s ed JbXii/Qfie tff.^I iset^ •itf 

iBill &di oi bofiiiioza aJtad ad* ;J^«ri;t " l,tfl*fcfi9l«b bias ©ri:t bn» lllcfnlalq 

jbtenas :J'n6f)iielefc bius lll;tfiIaXq ;J.aitt jtol filaq toA boisvlleb ecw ^©;ta«i/p 

xtad lo aJbxufoq OOO^'^t^ ed;^ aol sol^q ^di i^di «dd^X ^Ss LtiqA no 

itidi ban btwoq b uiaso S\I--^ 9cf filroda isctisx/p baooea adi oi eXcfBCflioes 

;tBXJsirii iiuii {ftslsq b«^na4 ad* *a rtol bJLsq Ms bBievtleb saw ri&d binE 

xl&d aid* lo 9^1iti art* *Ad*'* baeiSB *ful>a»ld& bos Ytl^aialq «^£^I t^S 

9d filxroria ^£^1 isa-^ ad* lo a'xe*iAirp d*ii/ol brus biJxf* «d* o* ©XcfetfJtiftaa 

MJtd* ad* o* 9ldBdtio&B iJLad sif* *stf* boa ",Jkuraq loq a*£(e9 S\I«T^ 

o* o9&t/l9i *nabnol9b ,d£<?I ^>S; isdmsvoJ! no *«d* ib»t«Yll9X> esw t9*tbJ:/P 

bexioBd^tf ifcfs-rQd* bna "isJiBup d*nx;ol 9di o* fiecflioca" ^lari sd* t^rll^b 

lo *ixuojits 9d* asHdoruiq o* bd^lIcTo aaw l'll*n±alq *fid* (*OBrc*noo e*l 

eoliq a *3 js^Lnua. naqo ad* nJt la**!**/!) diintol od* o* alcTscTlisaa ilisri 

bimraq a 8*000 S\I--^ lo eoliq ed* lo aeasxa nJt bmroq a 8*£fSo '<» lo 

bus 4^C^X t^^ *8XJSJ;/^'- lo *neaj9e«X5a ad* nl 89l*iBq ad* \d betalsjqlSe 

lOQO^O'ilt lo *n©*xe ed* o* baBoiiiab bbw lljWnlalq loaiori* oobg&i xd *8ri* 

o* llX*flijsIq Xtf anlwo l)©£Ub3i2Si OM^^SO lo sooalacf blaqm; na *sd* 

biXdsj ad* 0* aldadinoas esw riolriw ^il xd Jbeiavilab ilsri 10I *flabflel&b 

'ilo-*9s B EB iasjoixis aid* woIIb o* bsiallo Jllinlslq *ad* bxis j'i9*nBi/p 

»*i: xd bajcaislo aea/siaeb ed* o* 
sJaeffise-xga eil* belxiob nclnw aaweiia baillier a balXl *nBbfl9l9G 
no eaX*iaq ad* xd oial betoioB m^ad srad o* *fllaIqaoa ad* al be:^9iLa 
Lsio ns *jifi* b9j*linbs Sud ^bc.^1 ,^S *8JJ3Afrt no boB ,^£CX <^ nadaiaTai! 
lo ajari9* ad* usbnu t5£?I ,r£»dasvoM nl o*xiJ: ba-rodno eijw *nam99a8a 
a *a l^^.l^iilcXq o* ilsd lo ebnuoq <X)0,^£^ qM8 o* bsw *nBbnel9b doXdw 
bna odex lo 'i9*^iBi;p *eiil sd* ^nXisjb boxioq a atnao S\X-^ lo Qi^liq 
lli*nl«I., v>« uii.ibn9l9& xcf bsiovlXsb eaw ijbsri lo x*X*n3np *ad* *ad* 
aari* Tswisiifi ariT .soXiq bsaig^ 9d* *b isHbI »di xd 10I .. 



-3- 

averred tiiat the oral agreement alleged to have been entered into by 
the parcies on November 5# 1935» ^^^ ^o"t create a valid and binding 
contract because by its very terms the price of the hair was left open 
to be later agreed upon between the parties; that on April 28, 1936, 
the parties entered into a iivritten agreement with respect to the sale 
of hair by defendant to plaintiff for the second three months of 193^^ 
said written agreement setting forth the quantity, quality, price and 
terms of delivery; and that on July 22, 193^, the parties entered into 
a written agreement with respect to a sale of hair for the third three 
months of 1936, v^ch specified the quantity, quality, price and terms 
of delivery. The answer included a plea of the Statute of Frauds. 

Defendant filed with its answer a coimter claim for ^^24,140, the 
amount which plaintiff's complaint admitted to be due and owing. The 
counterclaim pleaded the written agreement of July 22, 1936, relating to 
the hair sold for delivery during the third three months of I936 and 
averred that all the deliveries for that quarter had been completed and 
that invoices for some of the shipments totalling $24,140 had not been 
paid. Plaintiff filed a verified answer to the counterclaim, which in 
substance restated and realleged the averments of its complaint. 

This was the state of the pleadings when the case went to trial. 
After Sidney J, Allen, president of plaintiff company, testified that the 
alleged oral contract of November 5* 1935* which was made in Pennsylvania 
and to be performed in Michigan, provided for the delivery of hair for the 
entire year I936, defendant, upon leave granted, filed en amendment to 

its answer, in which it pleaded the Statute of Frauds of each of said 

states. 

After the close of all the evidence plaintiff over defendant's 

objection obtained leave to file and did file an amendment to its 

complaint. This amendment deleted from the original complaint the 

allegation that the parties agreed orally on August 26, 1936, "that 

the price of the hair ascribable to the third and fourth quarters of 

the year I936 should be 7-1/2^ per pound" and substituted therefor an 



\(i oJal b9iQ;iae need, evad oi JbaaeXIft ;taemeeasja Xbio acI^ i&di beiio^fi 
^IbaXd boA bXl&'V « s^.«eio Jo« feJJb <(5^^X ^^ lacUaevoA no asX^ijsq fitfi;J 

,^C.?I ^ci-A IXnqJi ao iatii \B9UiAq suit asowd^ed aoqju JbesagB iq;^bI sd oj- 

t^^X \o miiuok 99Txii i>noo9a adi tol "ilLlctnXjaXq a^ ctxiaJbaolab xd ilsri lo 
ima soioq ,x»^lX*jx/p ^x^i^HA^p ibdi iij^iol jxUd^.tea d-asaiaeisii nect^tXavr dtse 
(X^jaX f>8as;^tt9 asXJ-iaq &di »^c?X ^SS xli*^ iio ^JSiW Imib iXtievXXsfi "to axnis^ 
»e>'xdJ f)aixW ari;^ lol al^ "lo eXae « oct itooqasi iWXw ;j£iea'.>s'iai3 noJ-^Jtiw a 
.;flrx0d^ lxi& ©oi^q ^X^^tiaifi.' ^x^^-^^^^^J^^P *^^ JaeXliooqa xioXriw ,^£?X lo exUnosa 
.aiu/fi'i^ lo sd^jjd^jad^o a(it lo BsXq a b&buJJasxl %smza& 9iSX ,\iB^klBb lo 
eiH ,04i'X,>i»c^ lol aLtsIoi»Jxaroo a levraajs 8;tX dJXw JbsXXl ^ostool&C 

dxIT «sj(2Xwo &aa &vb wi oi b&iilMi& ;taJtaIqiixoo a ' llX;^it±jsXq xisXilw ;t£U/Oiaja 

o;t aaiijaXsa ^^^X ,SJS xXtfXp lo jasfliQaisa tiQiil'oi aiU ijsfcasXq aXaXoasJ^xuroo 

Jbtta h'cJ^l lo artJxiofli ©sixW JbilxLj^ BAi anXiA/b x^s'V-tXsfi ^ol liXoe xtari e/i;t 

ItOA f>e;^eXqiaoo xx&ad b&ii la^xsi/p c^ad^ ^tol seXisvIXst oi^ ILa i&ili f>9ii9vs 

£i93Mi ;;on basi 0M«-^b^4' saXXXj&^aJ^ 8toefiiqJ:d» mii lo siaos lol eeoXovxiX ^&di 

nX doJtdw ^ffiiaXoas^m/o© arid- at iswbxu fcsXlliev a rsXXl lllixilssll *bl&(i 

^iaXaLqpoo s4l lo ^iaesLiBVA 9tii £>9;^sXXserc luus ^e;tfi;feda saaecfediia 

.XsXiJ^ oj dnov aajes arid- xtvxiw egotij^eXq ed;t lo si&is, oiU sbw sMI' 

axif iedi b9X%iizBt ,X«ft<l««>» IXUuXjBlq lo ctae^iaeiq ,ii&XXji .Xi xsJ^icl aailA 

BiOflvXxsjaaa^I a± djjaxa ajaw riolilw ,^^?X ,<* ^tsdasvoM lo d^oariJ-noo l&io b©a©XIs 

Mtr uol xtad lo X'^svXXefi otU lol £)9X)Xvoiq ^asa-tdolJi al baja-xcliaq ©d o^ ba& 

od d-aefflbfiSJtLs n« beXll ^be^aat^ svesX floqw ^^asMelsb nd£.?X issx siXJns 

J»i:d8 lo £i9d€> lo abissi'j^ lo ed-jj^swci ed;^ bmb^Blq il doMw nl ,iewens &ii. 

• eed'Bd'3 
8«:faB^n©l3b ^sYO llld^iiXBXq aonsfeirv© adt Xle lo asoXo cd^ ns>;flA 

8^1 o;t ^neMtflaofl n& »XX1 JbX£» fcns »XX1 oi 9Vi;»X bsnXjad^do aoXd^ostao 

ari^ cfixXfilqiBoo XacXsXno ed:^ fitoil feecJaXsf) iaBtabatMA eMT ^dxilaXqaioo 

^fixf;t" t^c^X *^ J-ajug/U no xXXst^o fe«®^s aoliieq ©ftt jTsrii^ flOi^sgelXa 

lo zzeii&BQ tHiisot has bxttii arid- oS sXd^dXiOBA iclBrf ari* lo soloq ed:f 

xtfl •solA'isrij Jbed-jiicJiiadwe ba& "fiinxroq leq ^^£\X-'V sd blvojdz ^i^l iBex ®di 



~) 



averment that in tiae alleged oral contract of Koveiaber 5» 1935* the 
parties agreed that the price of hair for the last three quarters of 
1936 ^should be the average price paid by the defendant to tanners 
for hair of such kind and quality plus 1^ per pound," Defendant's 
motion to strike the amendment to the complaint having been denied it 
filed a verified answer denying the allegations of said amendment and 
also pleaded the Statute of Frauds to the complaint as amended. 

Plaintiff's theory as stated in its brief is "that the proofs 
established a contract by defendant to sell to plaintiff 3,750,000 
pounds of hair, substantially one-fourth to be delivered in each of 
the four quarters of the year 193^, at a price of 1^ in excess of 
the price paid by defendant to tanners for such hairj that the contract 
could have been fully performed within the space of one year from the 
time it was laade; that defendant repudiated the contract in respect 
of the quantity allocable to the fourth quarter and that plaintiff was 
obliged to buy on the open market such quantity at prices about 4^ 
over that determined by the contract," 

Defendant's theory is that no contr£.ct or agreement was made 
in respect to the fourth quarter of 193©* which is the only period in 
controversy, and that the oral agreement alleged by plaintiff to have 
been entered into in November, 1935* i-^ made, was void under the 
Statute of Frauds, 

The primary question presented for our determination is 
whether the finding of the trial court that there was no contract or 
agreement made by the parties in respect to the fourth quarter of 
1936 was manifestly against the weight of the evidence. 

Plaintiff is a manufacturer of hair products - cMefly felt 
for various uses. Its plant is located in Detroit. Defendant, 
whose headquarters are in Chicago, is one of the largest dealers in 
hair, as well as a manufacturer of hair products which are competitive 
with those of plaintiff. On May 5, 1933* plaintiff by its written 

order made its first purchase of felting hair from defendant for 



»rf^ t^t^I »^ aecfmsvoi'l lo tOBiiaoo Lbio b9}i^Lia eiU itl i^i iaean»r» 

jl b»la»b /isecf 3/x±vari ^nJtisIqiBOO sri* oi ia&aiba»aui ♦rid aaljta^a o-t acJLioa 
baa ;Jn»etfoae££s blse lo 8flOic^s8^IX« ari* 3fii:*^o*Jb lawenB feelliiev a £)»I11 
.£)«M9iaj3 SB ^fllBlqffioo eil;^ e^ zbi^iit^ lo eJjjJ^AC^a %d:t bBbssLq oaljs 
elooiq «id^ isdi' al leiid a*! ni fca^Tals sjb yiooficJ' a ' ITtlJixliiiSi 

000,0$^^£ llUrtlalq Qi IX»a oJ ^isjs6s»1»6 \<i ioanSaov « bwielXdAJ^a* 

lo Ao:-9 at bsievtlBb »tf o* riotifol-ano T£XX£;l;fttji;^ecfx/a ^^Xfid 1© efanxioQ 

lo 889t>x9 aX -U lo 9oliq a iB ,^t.W i^-*V "^Ai lo anot'Lci/p 'ii/ol Qrl;;J 

\osiijioo eti& tasii jiiari doxja lol aisnnaJ^ oci^ ixiaitfislsb >jcf JbXsq soXiq Bdi 

frf:t moil iB9\ ano lo -^OGqa ©ili' aMttyt Jbeinol'iaq xXXul iidftcf ©vbxI blssoo 

iosqean nX cfOAiinoo siid^ bs^tfiXJii/qe? ixuluxslsJb ^sd;^ ;9f}jsffl asw 3X 9Bi1$ 

ZBm llXd'iiXfiXq izdi bOB n:&;^UB£fp si;fiDot &tLi od' olifaoollM VXJ'nox/p 9i(i^ lo 

^* ^ssoda esoXtq *.e x-^Xd^neifp xiox/a is/^ism. iX»qo adJ ixo Yucf oi basXXdo 

••.d'oand-nos ad^ X<f b0ahtn.&:i&b iztii levo 

»i>i3ffi «inr d^natassrisii 10 d^o^nd'cao oa ;t«d;r eX ^loeiW 2'i'fl£l)a9le<; 

ni £>oXi»q xSsto ari;^ «X rioXiiw tbt^X lo led^^jaup ri;^iuol sxl^ oj- ■jookiu'^i nx 

•Visri od- llXJxiX-sXq id bn^elLa ta'&m»ei:ts 1b*io 9iii tsiii bim ^x^isroi^aoo 

scii lobssj btov a-sv/ ^stjBffi IX ,^c.^X ^'xscfaif'von aX o;tHX f>©i9d^fl9 aescf 

^eo ;r3i:iijn09 on saw omndi ijuii itvao l&Xri aiki lo •galbaJtl sdi i»diedw 
lo t9iinsjv diissol edi oi ^osqes'x nX ztiiiaq edJ X'^ ftfcsai ia^ns&'iz* 
,9aa®bXva ed^ lo ^tiigXaw lii ;j8iiXiJS« XX*a»lXxisia «bw o£PI 
^J-Ial xlteldo - sJ-oxtboiq aXari lo i9'w;io&1sjmm & el llXcfnXjsX'i 

^j'aebfisleG ^iloiiQG xiX bQi^ool aX infiXq &il .a sax; ax/oXiJSV 'lol 

iiX ai3la9£> d-Gegiiil QiU lo ©no sX ,o3.oOXclO xiX eis ansJ-iBWpbssri saoriw 

•rXd'X^toqmoo qih doxdw a^fouboiq aXiUi lo leiwd^oalirxisia £ as IXow as ^lisd 

a&iiX'W ail x^ J.1i.:^nl&hi ,£cei ,c xr.^ nO .llXcfnXBlq lo ©eoii^ d^Xw 



1 

-5- 

delivery during the year 1934, On Kovember 22, 1934, again ty its 
written order, plaintiff purchased from defendant 3,000,000 pounds of 
hair (subsequently raised to 4,000,000 pounds) at 3-3/4 cents per 
pound, to be delivered in "approximately equal monthly shipments 
between January 1, 1935# and December 31, 1935." ^he defendant was 
behind in its deliveries under the contract covering 193? and by 
v»rltten agreement of the parties on October 10, 193?, tiie time for the 
delivery of the hair necessary to complete the contract for that year 
was extended so that defendant might "make shipment as soon as possible 
after January 1," All of the hair covered by the contract for 1935 
was shipped by the end of February, 1936. Apprehending tliat the supply 
of hair would not be sufficient to meet the demand in I936, a meeting 
of a nvunber of the leading hair dealers and manufacturers of hair 
products was called and held at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel in 
Philadelphia on November 13, 193?, to discuss the raw material outlook 
for the coming year, tiie probable needs of the manufacturers and the 
moans of supplying same. At such meeting plaintiff was represented by 
its President, Sidney J, Allen, Defendant was represented by its 
president, Theodore Viilde, and by the Chairman of its Board, V, A. 
wallin. There were also in attendance Victor Hemphill, President of 
Hemphill & Company, a dealer, J, J, Dens ten, t^resident of Dens ten Hair 
&. Pelt Company, a dealer as well as a laanufacturer, and iheodore 
Horwich, iiecretary of the General Felt Products Company of Chicago, 
The concerns represented at the meeting were the principal users and 
suppliers of hair in this country. All those who participated in the 
Philadelphia conference testified in this cause except Hemphill, who 
died shortly before the trisil. 

Concerning what transpired at the Philadelpiiia meeting, Allen, 
plaintiff's president, testified that Mr. Tdlde said "the consumption 
of hair was increasing beyond the production of the hair and it would 
be to the interest of the individuals to collectively get together and 
buy our hair together through one particular group, and also to regulate 
the amovint of hair each of the manufacturers would consume during the 



r 

-^- 

cdLC? lol aaili »fid^ t^c^-^ «^-t lodoit^O no aelcfisq ©riJ^ 'io ia9^&9i^& a^iiX'xm 

•IcfJti^eoq ea noos 36 J^a»£iqlxis «2Utf" ijd^la diuMolet ^jsil;}' oe l>9^9^xe saw 

Vlqqi:^* €iciw ^ati^ SiiijDnedeitjqA .oC^^X ^x'Sfi^fsd*'? lo i>n9 aiitf Xd btxiqliie tarn 

aoiutssffl a ^oc^I iiX tajmxeb esLs ^e-aa o,? jnaXvllOi/a ed J^oa oXjjOvt iXad lo 

nJuari lo a'xeoi/^oaluaaia fcas sioXssi) iXad ;^JtI)fc»X extct lo aytfama a Io 

iii Xed-oH fcnol^^s'XjfS airweXX»fi ©ri:^ d'ii Weri ^s bfilluo zm a^oufcoiq 

3iooX;riio XiU'ie^jsa wjbi arW e«JioaXi> «^ *^£^X ,8X a»<l«0V©Vt ao sJulqXafcfiXJWi 

X^r be^fasaeaqai zbv llijaislq ^t;^&9m dtrnt ik .Mtaa gfsJt^Xqqije Io &aas>m 

M;il xd i)&d^a8s&T:qssri asw ^xiisl)fls1t©(l .ceXXA «L xiwcbitii ^ia^blceil zil 

•A .V ,JE>nBoti til Io itsanJbsriO «sl* x<i boA ^ebllM^ «'S«Jboaril ^c^nefclasiq 

i Io tn&Msefi^ ^llM(.i2s&ii ao^olV «»ttBl>fl9;f;r« al oeXs ©law ^leriT .cIXXjb.;/ 

ll&B xifiJanaU Io *flsbi«ea^ ,fl»^*o«tt ,t ,1. ^tteX^sl) & ,x«*9ia«>J> ^ Xlxriqiasi: 

9^oi)08xl'i I)ri6 ^lerujjOJBltffi&Ei A BB XXsw Sii icoXssi) & ,xoj31^o0 ^X9*»i i> 

.ogfioMO Io Xfte««K>3 e;roi/i>o'X4 i'X»'5 XaiaasO mi Io x^tfi^tsio©^ ,iIoXwioH 

toB BTCssu; laqianliq aild^ e-xew gaJtJ&aai flds- is i3»Ja»a»T£qet£ «aio»a©o aiTI' 

9di al fied-aqloJu^isq ocfw ©BOfi^ XXA .xi^nuoo aJbdd- nl ilAii Io 8i9xXqqi/« 

oriw ^IXiriqixsK ^qesxs ©sxtbo 2±xi>J ni £)t>i^xJ^i;a3- •ane^slisoo BixlqX©i)J8Xiii*i 

,lsi'ii &iii ©rtolacf vil^ioiie belb 
,n9il^. ^gxslJsefii ttXaqlsfcjBXXrM ©rij jb b^il%aae*Li i&tivi satnT»»KoO 
aoictqitUjaixoo &di» blAZ etXJtrT ,il£ ^Biid- bsl^lizsi ^&£i@blB&'xq z*ViliatAlq 
bXiJOw ,^1 bsm 'liisxl ©rW- Io uoXo'scfeoiq edi baox^ :so■l^BSVioal tsiv ilsd to 
baa \Q^»ioi j©s xXsvWosXXoo ©;/■ eX&u&Xvihni sili la .*B»a»d-fil &xl^ o;J ©cf 
a^^fiXifSQi oi osls f)nB ^qjjoig aAXwoXjisq ©no d^uoidi lasii^^oi ilad i&o \u(l 
acLt saliJ^f) oiauanoo fcXxfow 8i©nxr;tofili;xxBfli «ri;t Io doa© ^Xsd Io iaxsomA 9iii 



1 

-6- 

Aollowing yeari® that vVilde and Densten stated how nrach hair they 
would need; that these amounts ^mre compared with the production 
anticipated for the following year; that Ivilde and Horwich said that 
they would pare down their production for the folloiriLng year aiE^ that 
he [Allen] stated that he would do likewise; that he said plaintiff 
would be content with approxiaiately 6,000,000 pounds; that V^ilde said 
that his company would undertake to deliver 3iOOO»0*-'^ pounds of brown 
cattle hair and 750^000 pounds of calf hair to plaintiff; that 
Hemphill said that his company would furnish 1,000,000 pounds of cattle 
hair and 5^0 > 000 pounds of goat hair; that Densten said that his company 
would furnish 1,000,000 pounds of hair, giving plaintiff approximately 
6,000,000 pounds; that '♦they would furnish, sell us, sell our company 
that amount of hair *** the price to be determined quarterly, 1^ per 
pound differential above that which they paid the tanners, 1^ average 
price, which they paid the tanners;" that "iiir, Horwich of the Greneral 
Pelt Company and myself said that we v;ould like to ixave determined the 
exact price of the hair;" and that he [Allen] asked "what the price of 
hair V70uld be for the first quarter;" that •'Mr, Wilde said that the 
price to the tanner at that time was ?-l/20 a pound *** the price to 
us would be for the first quarter o-l/2^;" and that Mr, IVilde stated 
that "they v/ould give us 3,000,000 of brown medium and short brown 
cattle hair and 750,000 pounds of calf hair *-^^ all domestic cattle 
hair . " 

Theodore Horwich testified in plaintiff's behalf that he said 
at the Philadelphia meeting that his company would use less iiair in 
1936; thcit he stated that his company would get along with 4,000,000 
pounds; that Hemphill said "that he would sell them 1,000,000 pounds" 
and Wilde said "that he would sell them 3,000,000 pounds;" that "the 
same people said they would sell ^llen a quantity of hair to be deliv- 
ered in 1936," but that he did not recall what the quantity was; that 
"the price was to be 1^ a pound above their cost *^«- the same basis 
as it was sold to us; " that itiilde, Densten and Hemphill said that 
"the prices were to be determined quarterly;" and that the price for the 



r 

aoJt;foubo*:q er£;f tUht bsisqaton siow Bim/oaw ^Eeric^ tstli ^boan Jblucw 

d-Bri;:^ bltiB r(oJtw«xoH biia e&Xl:^ ;tAri;^ jtbs^ arLbroIXol exl;t nol bsd-jsqlolina 

ifjsrf:^ jftAe f«9X salsroIXol ari;)- io"i aolAouboiq 1I9M anob oiaq, blucm x^di 

llUal&Ici bifls «ri d'silif (98.tW93flX ofc bXiiow arf ctario bs:tBSe (xieXXA] erf 

Msa 0bXJt<« J'sxW teixcoioq OOo^OOO,^ XX^^fifliixo'xqqjsi xWXw iaoiaoo »rf bXirow 

rwoncf Tto zbnaoq, OUO^OQO^i. idViXsb o;^ soLeid^iGbnu bXx/o'.r "lyJ^q'xoo ai^ ^«J^ 

;fi3ri:f llliJnX^q oi tlsd ^Xso lo ebnuoq OOO^O^V fiHB il«ri eXJ-^-ao 

sXJ^-no 'to abrojoq OOO^OOO^X riaXrriJ/i: bltron x«fiqiaoo aiil *adtf filjea XXlriqateH 

•^taqao^ eJai ;tiiri;f feiisa aetnaod i&di {ilad. d-floa lo abnifoq 000,00^ hns ilarl 

"^Ift.-tRwK-nfqqa 1'U:faliilq sfllvl"^ ^iljirf lo abm/oq 000^000, X delft-UJl bXxrow 

Xnsqittoo 'UJo XX»3 <Jiif XX»E ^riaxnixn bXiroff "^^fO-* :fj6rl:t jabfuroq OUO^OOO^ti 

isq ^X ,xXi©Cf"iBXifp bsxilarisJ'eb sd ot eoliq eriJ' ♦*♦ tXsri lo ioL'osiA i£itl:i 

esitiovB ijX ^anannfid- ariut bXjsq x®^ rfoXxIw ;tijri^ ©vodje XflXdrtanelllfi bm/oq 

Istienei) sxtJ to doJyfioE .iM" J-fidd " {Biertruct 9rLJ bjtjsq x®rf* riolitv ^soliq 

QdS beatmi9t3b svad oJ- 9aI±X bluovt m {J-jsri;^ bXsa IXoe^ipa fcrus '^CJ^^qooO d'Xe'5 

lo soiiq BtH jiuiv?" bejiaa [rr&XXA] ari JsjlJ- bxis "iiXfiil sxld^ lo ©oXiq ;t0J3X» 

edd^ *i5d* bioa sbXi* .iM" ^jorfcf ♦♦jtsJiajUi.i itaiil ed:} tol Dcf bXi/o." itsri 

Gt scrXiq sricJ- *** tjnj;oq b ^S\X-^ «i3w «al;^ d'firf;}' Sb lesmaA ©rfJ 0^ eo±lq 

bed-JBd-e 9bX±?J ,iM j-BilJ- bns *j^S\X-c> led-xairp J-aiH eild' 'iol scf bXi/ow 8L' 

xmo'icf j'totia ba.i oxjtbeia ii«roicf "io 000,000 ^£ zis 6Tl.% bXx/ovr xs^^*' ^sri;t 

»litBO olcTEefliob XX« *** IXal IXao le sbnx/oq 000,0^^ fcJHjs iliiri eltiMO 

bisg Sri :)'ficf;^ IXsxlscf a^llXcrnliiXq xil bsnicrasd' xioirwioB eiobosii 

" XLt iXsri seeX azu bXxrow -^tiusqcrDO alll :fj3xl;f gnXcfseis: slriqXsbsXl/l^ Qdi tB 

it)00,OO0,-^ dStvf sxioXs ;J-93 bXiJow -(tnflqjcoo eM :^Bx{i bod-a^s sri d-Bild^ t^£^X 

"ebGXfoq OOO^OOO^X BioxI;f XXea bXi/ow 9x1 ^aUzf" fclsa XXlriqmeH i-adS {abatsoii 

sxicT" d-srf;t '^jB&xufOq 000,000, £ atoricf XXsa bXiaow sitf ^srtf* fclisa ©bXlW baa 

-rXXob 9(1 o:^ itrui lo x^-^^^i^P * xisXXa XXse bXx/ow t®^ ^X^a sXqoeq daut 

t&di ;saw x^X^iJ^EUp arid- dsxfw XX^oei JOiff bib arf d-ericT djjcf •*,6£?X nl bsn© 

alaso' 9ias2 »ri;f *** j-aoo iiet£t snfocfu bm/oq £1 >X •cT Od eB\7 -^ ' ■ -_ "r:+" 

d-fiilt bXs8 XXlriqcisH baa HaifaisoO: ,9bXlV? ^sdi "jBif i^ Moa asw jx aa 

sttij 10'i soXiq erfd" d-sxli bna "j^^s^iBijp b&alsnst&b §d* o* d-xswr «eoXiq sxid"" 



1 



"first quc.rter vvas to be 6-1/2^," 

Wilde, testifying lu defendant's behalf, denied thet he agreed 
orally y/lth Allen that defendant v/ould sell to plaintiff 3,7^0,000 
pounds of hair, one quarter of which v»'£->.3 to be delivered in each of 
the four quarters of I936 and that the price of such hair for the last 
three quarters of I936 was to be 1 cent over the average price paid 
by the defendant to tanners for liair of such kind and quality. He 
testified that Allen requested an agreement of that kind but that he 
told Mm he v.ould not make such a coiiBffiitmentj that he Vr'ould, however, 
agree to sell the 937,000 pounds of Iia.ir, wiiich Allen requested for 
the first iiui-rter, at 6-1/2 cents a pound. He further testified that 
he xold .lien, "The .Imerican liair & Felt Company would make every 
endot.vor to supply their customers, including Allen Industries and 
General Felt, their requirements, but unless they received enough hair 
for xheir omx requireiaents as well as for all of their customers in- 
cluding .illen Industries and General Felt they could not sell any 
quantities except what v.-e proialsed to give them verbally for the first 
three months of 193<^ and the balance v/e still owed .'lllen Industries on 
the 19o5 contract --^-^ I said that any further quantities and prices 
would have to be set on or after the 1st of April, the 1st of July, 
and 1st of October of I936,* 

John J, Dens tan. President of the Dens ten Felt & Hair Company, 
testified tiitit he attended the conference in Philadelphia j that "the 
conversation went on as to what the possible requirements might be for 
the parties there for their manufacturing purposes for the year 1936 
*** and each one subioltted an estimate of vdaat their possible require- 
ments would bej" the.t Allen said "he would require approximately six 
and a half million pounds of liair, brown hair;" that "it was estimated 
that the production for 193^, considering inventories, that the avail- 
able supply v/ould be less in 193^ than it was in 13j5> a^d everybody 
agreed under the circumstances to be satisfied v/ith a lesser amount for 

1936 than they liad in 1935* and that \?as agreed upon •?''*» as to price, 
of course we could only be approximate, and very indefinite j however 



c 

-\- 

".^i^\I-d 9Cf at eBW iB:iiASsp ^ziVifl 

000^£^^,£ llidnJtdXq oc^ Ilea bLuo^i ioBbiift^^b ioAi a&llk tiiiyt \IJLa^o 

to Atx&B al h^'i&vli&b »d oi &&v xlolriw lo i&iiaiip ano ,ajjsui lo afiawoq 

JaBi anW not iJUxi dopz "io Doi-iq ©x» ;tari^ bOA ^H^l lo e^iactiiuip ai;o'3: «iii 

bXe,q eoliq ©s^isyjs ©xitf lavo it%s>o i eti ot esw 6^?! to aneiiBL. ssiri^ 

sH .x--ti«J^P Jf"^ iJflM xloim lo 'ilacl lol Biaiinjs;^ a^ JuBfjaolsf) ©fit xtf 

^•lsvcr^Q£i ^tXuw! 9x1 i^iU {^ OBmt Xmoioo a dout QjiAB d^on f?Xirovf ari ntrl bloi 
iiol i>«*a»ifp©i nell*. rlalrfw ^nlsxi lo ebiuroq 000,^£? oxtT JLXfsi o:t 99ii» 

Xi8v» 9^mi blsso'if •^cxtoqmoO itie'? x ila}! itaoJt^^uL'i orfT" ,ndIlA bJ,o3' »rf 

tjn.a £9iT:tsi;BflI nsXiA snlAwionl ^eioiaoiEiio ilerl* TXqqim o;t ioVii&ba» 

'iJtari rtgifons b^vioooa x»rfd^ eeslxw Ji;d ^Bd^naaoilwpeT: rr^erid" ,;^XeT Xsianst) 

-xii ai9iao.tao3 xisjctt lo XXs lot as XIw aa ziaemtntsspai cruo ixoxid lol 

^tos XXsa tton bluoo \&£li iin^ lAiaa&O bns eaXiizubal hsXXa •^albulo 

SQitt etU To'i xllAKiie'v is^sii svls oj bsaJtnoiq 9w iasbi ctqesxe 80±-Jl:fnajup 

no aolTiistfJatI nsXLn bsmo XXi^« ®w aoxsalscf erW £ats d^^'X lo eriw^xioai ©sirict 

^xXut lo ifaX edt ,XlrrqA lo ;tsl swi^t loita 10 no ctoa ed at ©vaii blx/ow 

".^c^X lo lecfatoO lo ctaX Lob 

©rid-" dsrid iBJLfiqXefcAXiff? nl sorxstglnoo erfd bebnodda 9il ctjsxij bolliuaed^ 
10I ed iiisiifii sd^jiaajJxUjpei aXcfXaaoq edi dscf* o4" as no inm aoXi&B'iovaoo 

^i^l 'tM&\ ©fid 10I aasoqijjq aal^mdo^-slijnaia alqdd o:ol 9'iodJ etWiaq ®xW 
~9iXcp©i eXeflsaoq il&di Sadvi lo ©dsattdes rta b9iihu(ia» &sio xtoao baa ♦*♦ 

xia xX9di5iEixoiqq£ eiJbips'i bXxrow 9il» bt&Si xt^XXA darfd •• lacf bXiJovr «da«fl( 
i»ed-sailda» e^w dX" iBdJ " {ilmi rwoid ,tjLafI lo abnvoq ^oJtXXXai IXfid s tma 
-IX;avjs ©dd d-j^d ^csXio^nsTflX sri-t^abiaxioo t^£?-t "X'^l noldoKboiq arid J'.sild 

Xboci'xisv9 ba& Kc^-t fll sbw dl umi^ <^i^l al aasX scf bXx;ov^ i^Xqqxfe alcfjs 
aol dxmoitts laaaat a Mdii? b^Jtlail -- ^'J^ o.; H&osuzi&simoiJto &ii loiau: flo»^B 

^ooliq od' Es ****^ noqij- poe'ig.i ■; - . Jtxi; DXts i^£$X at bM x&dJ OMii ^c^X 
<xe'7««ro£t |9^1ixil9b^ X'l^'^ ^Ji^i^ ,»^aiiixoitqqa ecf xXixo bXiroo »w mi^hoo lo 



-8- 

there was a definite price set for the first three months of the yaar;** 
thet "we said "^'e v/oiild r.upply him [iillen] uith a million pounds of 
cattle hair and two hundred paid tv-.enty-five thousand pounds of goat 
iiair ■'^** v/e said thet the price would be 6-1/2^ for the first three 
months of the jear, for 25% of that quantity upon the cattle hair 
and 5-llH on the goat hair, for 2% of that quantity^** that he did 
not hear any convers.?tion as to the quantity of iiair that defendant 
would endeavor to furnish to plaintiff during 193^i tha.t he heard 
nothing said between Allen and Wilde as to price "excepting general 
convers&tionj" that "prices were not being fixed for anything except 
the first qaarterj that he furnished plaintiff vdth hair during the 
first three months of 1926 - "25% of what we sold liim for the year" 
at a price of "6-l/2f^ for the cati-le hair sxxd ^-Z/^i foi' the goat iiairj" 
that his company did not sell or deliver to plaintiff any hs.ir after the 
first three months) and that "we set our prices for the second quarter 
but he [Allen] would not agree to it ^■'"^ we just did not ship," 

On examination by the trial judge Densten testified that "while 
he, Wilde and the others were present - future requirements had been 
talked about - something v;ps said by Vilde or nllen concerning the 
price of the hair being based upon a differential of 10 over that paid 
us to the tanners J " tloat that was said "at the time they were trying to 
figure out what the price would be at the beginning of the year and it 
was agreed that a legitimate price for the other manufacturers to pay, 
if they were not buying flirectly from the tanner, would be 1^ per 
pound differential as between what any of us paid the tanner and the 
f.o.b. price Detroitj" that "Allen paid them 1^ over the tanner's price 
that existed in January of 1936;" that the differential of 1 cent "was 
bet.ring on the whole yearj" that "what was said Vi/as that we would go 
along on that basis for the first three months of the year and any 
price situation or anything else tliat cams up during the first quarter 
Y^ould be readjusted at the beginning of another quarter," 

V, A, Tallin, who attended the meeting in Philadelphia and who 
was at that time the Ciiaii^aan of the Board of Directors of defendant. 



( 

lo ciim/oq aollllM b di£& [rwIlAj icJtrf ^Iqqx/a JbXi;<y.f aw blmz «w" iadi 

xfcari »XJ;fao eii* «oqjj xma&sip i&dt 1© 3E'55 Tcol ^i&«% ^i la axttaoa 

biBmi ad ^/ari;J' i^c^-t aniiui> lllinJtsiq oJ iieiAOLn o;t torasbao blucm 
Xav«a»s s^-^^<I'^^3cs*' soiiq o^ i& ^blBi ban asXXA ne9w;t9ci blj^.^ 'ititdioa 

"issx arl^ lot mid blo& »w cfflxiw to ^^S" -^ ^£^X to tJitaom 99iiii tnttlL 

**{ilRti wfiOg ajdJ- lol !^\c~\i bxjs ■xiaxi 9X+*»e »Ai not ^fSXX-d" lo soXiq » i« 

afW isd-lc TlBd \u& 'i'ii:tnlj3Xq oJ- ievll«b 10 XX»a ioa bib viQqffi<?t) aXri ;*attt 

is^Tsi/p Anooea ^rfd" lo*! eootiq %Cfo J-se aw" i&iii bsiB {ztitnca »eniii ij-ertXl 

•*.qi:ri8 Aoa Lib iaul sw ♦** d^X o;? ©eaa^ ^on blvav [aeXXA] Sii Jfud 

bXM^** iM^ bQltlJti»i a^izaed e^bui iBlii erLt \d aoUmtlimxB aO 

ns9cf b&d Biaomaiijjpa'j &isiiu% - ;ta989'xq oimr si6il;to edi bfus Bblt^i ««d 

aeU' saln'ZdDfioo aeXXA no doXXrv -<{cf £iXr.e e.^^w gnXil^fiffio^ - iifods b9:^SBt 

bXsq iiiilj 19VO ^X lo XeXc^na^slllI) a aoqif feeaucf axiiscf liail f*r(j lo ssXiq 

o;t Siil'^Cid- eiow \9sii @mli edS ie,** blat, aaw iiuiS i&£li "taisnne:f exi^ oi au 

it bsu tBBX &di lo axsXiiaXsacf 9fli Js erf ^X«ow «9oi:nq dxfit ^jpriw tuo srufsXl 

^-^sq oj 8'i8'Xiuc^0iilij£isa ledio i^di lol soiiq ©JBULtJXssX s ii^i 5«»ia« 8/«r 

"saq ^X 90' bliian ^'%9aaai 9ft J mort TcI*2>s^tJL& sni'^jy^cf cfoa aiew x^tii 11 

ftfl^ i>iiB lornisd- aiii bl&q exi I0 ^iub i&dv tm9W^9fi as Xald-0.9i9lllfi bnxioq 

&ol*iq e'^sao^a- srii asvo <?X a»di bl&(i i»XXA» d'sjf(;t "i^Xoi^sa scXiq .(^.0,1 

e£w" ^«9o X lo l&lia^'i&l.'i.ib &di i&dJ **{6i^L 1© xi&ija£Z al b^islxe tBtU 

o§ JbXxfow 9w ;^jsxiJ- asw blsit saw ^aiiw'' ;tAricf " {t&ex 9Xorfw exU ho jialT:fi©cf 

yjis, bsiR i3,Bx ^di lo tsdJiBom ^^ndi isttt »di %ol ale Ed i&di ao ajaoX« 

nad-^foi'p cTeiXI exitf sxilixjf^ qjj sjciiso imii 98X9 gnlct^Xna ^0 iioXvtBixcfla eolTcq 

od*r lia& ijlilqXeijjsXlri^ ill ^slUsqbi sdi bebas:^iB oriw ^xxIXXbW .A ,V 
^iaaba&teb to aie^oaiid lo h^f.oR srfj- -^0 nBfflil«riO 9di 9mf:^ .-f.-.n'.-t cf^i a^jw 



-9- 

te stifled "tiiat llr. Wilde said that he could not guarantee a large 
quantity or any quantity for the year 193^* i^e had iiis own ejIUs 
to supply, that he had other customers to take care of and declined 
to promise the definite large quantity that Jitr, Allen wanted to 
secure from himj" and that "as soon as they began talking price I 
said to them, 'now, I am not concerned in the price, I am not con- 
cerned in quantities. I won't sit in with you on this price 
situation because I don't know anything about it' •**** and these 
buyers and sellers went into a corner of the rocaa and discussed 
prices ^^->** I was not a party to that discussion and don't know 
what the prices were," 

As heretofore stated defendant was not able to complete the 
shipments required under the I935 contract until the end of February, 
1936. Defendant then began to make sliipaents of the 937»0O0 pounds 
of hair it agreed to furnish plaintiff for the first quarter of 
1936, Shortly thereafter difficulties arose regarding the slowness 
of deliveries and the grade of hair delivered, as a result .illen 
came to Ciiicago April 28, 1936, and a meeting was held at defendant's 
office, at wMch were present i».llen, ilde and Thomas H. Jones, 
Manager of the Hair Division of defendant. At this meeting samples 
of iiair were examined and the gra e of liair to be delivered in the 
remaining shipments for the first three months of 1936 agreed upon. 
At that time an agreement was also entered into between the parties 
for the sale of 937,000 pounds of hair to plaintiff at a price of 
7-1/2 cents a pound for the second three months of 1936. The exact 
terms of this agreement were specified in the following letter of 
April 28, 1936, from defendant to plaintiff and plaintiff's reply 
thereto of April 29, 1936j 

•to-. Sidney J. Allen, President, 
Allen Industries, Inc., 
Detroit, Michigan, 

Dear Mr. Allen: 



-?- 

eiiiil a 99;tflii'j.i.A.c' ^^^' ^^^'^^^ ^rl Jsri:r fcii.^ -..^^ . ... .j^iJ" i)9l'l±;tae;t 

clllm caro alri bad »xl ,ot;^I assx «ri^ 10^ "«j;tl^fliu/p \nis 10 xiUnsvp 

bsallosb boB to ®ij38 B:iBi oi zmwao^zuo isxlio b&d ed :t&di ^xlqqisz ^ 

oi b9iam n»IIA .tty ;ti3ri^ xma&up saaal ecTlxillsb sili salmoiq o* 

I ootiq ^ttMleS flBsscf X9di as nooe aa" ^axtt bna "iJntri ■oil eiuooa 

-«oo toa HB I .eoJtiq artt al beaioonov Soa ms I ^voa* ^saBdi oi bXa& 

eolnq el£U no uo-^ il^lw nl He. ;l*now I .aeWlc^nairp ni Jbaniso 

»a9£[;f bflB ♦** ';ti: ivods ■^ahiixnB wonai tf'jioi) I aaxfaosd nol;taJj^i:a 

bsasxioaJLb bus jaooi srW lo lemoo £ od^njt iaem niBllea baa aia^ud 

-KoaA :t»aob ba& noleax/oalb ^ariJ o;f X^ijq i> ^on aaw I ♦♦* aaolrtq 

edi 9;JeIqffloo oi eldi^ ioa aaw ;trtBi)fl9l9b b9*aia e^olo^toiari aA 

j-sc'iaificfi?'? lo bfls exW Llicw ioaiiaoo "^i^l ad;t n9bm; beilxipen actnemqiila 

abfluoq 000, ^£^ ©fW lo s;tfl««qixla sjLsiu o;t ruBaed n9ciJ ;tflBbn9l©a .d£^I 

lo i9^njsi;p ;tfril axf* nol lllcTfllalq rfeliiiiil oJ b©©iafl ;tl ilad lo 

aasrwola exlc)- snJtbisgsi ©sotb asliXi/ollllb lailAatedS yliiodZ *bi^l 

nsll-r. ctluae-. .baiavlXab ilsd lo abaig sxtf ban aal'ievlleb lo 

a»;txisbn9l9b Jis bleri saw s^JQ^'ta a bna »^£?I ,8£ XlrrqA ojaolriO o;t eioso 

^csnol, , aBOorfT bus obll ,n9llAi ^neas^q sisw dolrivr ie ^9ot11o 

aelqiaaa :^ali&Bm eldi J-A .^flijbrtelsb lo aolzlvl^ xiJ lo isaaiusM 

9xfJ- al bsie-^llsb sd oi tlzci lo e xjij ©iricf boa bsalmsxs 9isw iJlbxI lo 

,noqju b9d^ss ^£.^1 lo aiUnoei »Bidi ittli. 9xtt lol ai^fl9aiqxrie salnlaraaT 

eeJictneq 9xli «99wd^9d oinl b9i©Jn9 oala aaw J^rwrnesnga xxa eali iaxii ^A 

lo ^5o±1q a iB lllinlalq oit ^Isxl lo abm/oq 000, t£^ lo ©laa 9di lol 

d^oisx9 ©flT .^c^-f lo adctfloxa ©stdcJ bnoo98 sjI^ 10I bnvoq a 8^a90 S\X-\ 

lo leSiQl gnlwollol srfd- nl b9ll±09qa ©lew ;fn©me9iaa zMi lo aai9i 

\lq91 a'lliifllalq bna llWnlalq o;^ ;trLsbn9l9b aoil ,^c?X %8s UrzqA 

«^c.?I »?S XloqA lo o;t9i©rW 

^J-nsblagi^ ,n9llA ,L x^^bic. .o/i" 

^•9iil ,S92'xJ^ex}b£CX CdXXA 

.xiaalxioXM x^loiiQd 

:xi9lXA .oM ^aeQ 



-ID- 
AS arranged wiieri you were here today, we are to book 
you fort 

750,000 lbs. Hair 

187,000 " " 937,000 lbs. 

To be sMpped during the second 

quarter of this year, V?e 

still owe you on accotint of 

Hair which should have been 

shipped you in the first quarter 460^000 " 



ihat we sold you of Foreign Hair 

today and what we are reserving 

for you of that kind aggregate jiiOO.OOO lbs. 



1,397,000 

jOO^OOO 

397,000 



The prices to apply are as follows: 

We are to ship you at once - l6o,000# Foreign Hair 

To be shipped from time 

to time - ^sO0.O00# Domestic " 

460,000# 6 1/20 lb, 
(To complete shipments for the first quarter) 
On the 340,000 lbs. Foreign which we are 
to ship you at the rate of one carload of 
Foreign to two carloads Domestic - and 
On the 597,000 lbs. Domestic 7 l/2i^ lb, 

f ,o.b, cars Detroit in full carload lots. 

If for any reason v/e cannot complete shipments by the end 
of the second quarter, we are to ship the balance as soon as 
possible thereafter. 



Please acknowledge. 



Yours very truly, 

American Hair & Pelt Company," 



"American Hair & Pelt Co, 
Chicago , 111, 

Gentlemen: 

We are in receipt of your letter of the 28th and wish to 
advise that everything in your letter corresponds with ISr, Allen's 
under stc-nding except the Domestic Hair is to be all Brown Cattle 
and samples are to be submitted to us for approval. 

Yours very truly, 

Allen Industries, Inc." 

On July 2, 1936, Allen wrote V»ilde the following letter: 

"Mr. T, 'Vilde, 

American Hair and Pelt Company, 

Chicago, Illinois, 

Dear Ted: 

We are very much interested in knowing what yotir intentions 
are in regard to the hair situation for the third quarter. 

We are desirous of getting settled on this item at your 
earliest possible convenience. 

With kindest regards, I am 

Very truly yours, 

Sidney J. Allen, President," 



-.01- 
xtsH •scfl 

eW ,Xi&x aJLcfct lo iB^'XJUJp 

" 00'.' 

©•ia fctf dolfhr . aO 

.en ifSV ^ »JUa«aofl .acfl v , aeW aO 

.^^oX b&oln&o IXxrl ol :j^lo'z;}^e<ii ii«u»o AcfvO*! 

bae atii jeXqjaco c)-onnBO 9W xxocbsi II 

86 :. &di qiuia oi faiii aw ,i»d--: i ea erlct lo 






• eai>eIwocQ{OB 9qbbL^ 



.00 :M?/ 



taecield^asd 



a'noIlA .IM dcMw abnoqasiT^c- - ^- - ■• - - -- ...—..-- -,,--. . . -..^cj^ 

»L.^&0 awoi€f lis 9tf o;t ai ray 

,Xijvoiqq.s lox ':.. .. '-.■ -l:-;.. 

iXLui:i \i@'v ziisc'j. 
".onl ^&etiAs,iitji:il aellA 

iieiiiel SfllwoXXol &di &bim aJ-oiw coXXA ,^£^1 ^S x^uX> aO 

.elOxsiXXI ,0^:0X110 

ib&T 1P53fl 

anoX;tn©^ixi; tu/ox isriw ^nXwooji n! .fi;Jfll doufii •z%&v.&ie ©K 

.iie^fijsiip biXil^ oxI;t lol . 'ia ilsjrf exfj ©j ©u^j»i nX ©«zj5 

itrox ;^A BBil uttH no i>»X;r;t@e saX:r;f«3 lo zuo^ssb eie oW 

• •oaeXoevaos eXtflssoq ;}^«9xX^:aj» 



-11- 

Pursuant to this letter a conference was arranged in Chicago 

On July 22, 193t), between iUlen and Wilde, the result of which was 

recorded in the following correspondence between the parties: 

"July 22, 1936. 

Mr, Sidney J. Allen, President, 
Allen Industries, Inc. 
Detroit, Michigan, 

Dear Mr. Aliens 

As per our conversation in this office today, we have booked 
your order for 

750,000 lbs, Cattl© Haiar 
and 

187,000 « Calf Hair 
Total 937,000 

to be shipped to you In the third quarter of 1936 at a price of 

7 1/20 per lb. 
f.o.b, cars Detroit, in full carload lots. 
We still owe you 

294,406 lbs. Domestic Hair 
and 

107#317 lbs. Foreign Hair 

which is the balance due on contract niade with you as per our 
letter of April 23, I936. 

It is further understood that if for any reason we cannot 
complete shipments by the end of the third quarter of the above 
specified luaatities, we will ship the balance as soon as possible 
thereafter • 

iiill you please aciaiowledge this letter? 
Very truly yours, 
T. idlde 
President 

American Hair & Felt Company," 

"July 23, 1936. 

Mr. '1., Ivilde, 

Americ&ii Hair and Felt Company, 

Chicago, Illinois, 

Dear Ted: 

Thanks very kindly for the courtesies extended to me yestsrday. 

We wish to confirm your letter of the twenty-second, and accord- 
ing to tha writers understanding the 750,000 pounds of cattle hair is 
to be toowa domestic hair. 

With kindest personal regards, I am 
Very truly yours, 
Sidney J. Allen, 
President." 

In August, 1936, plaintiff made a series of complaints regard- 
ing shipments of foreign hair and as a result of said complaints Wilde 
conferred with Allen at the latter 's office in Detroit on August 26, 



tZBUzaq oiii ao99i*^ 99a3baoqB9tioo sajtwollol 6d^ al b^biooei 

,orrI ^eotoil'..- . 

baa 
lo soJtiq B ;ta dc?I lo i J onJ al ifox od^ beqqlxie ed ocT 

6a« 

•vocfs ©ri: 'to fw^ «i^ x«S niaiMKil 

idCcfisaoq 8ii . Ms IIlw aw jgsWi.tnai 

ViSvJJsI alriJ .■::j»: £•^a^iy i;o^ III': 

,eiifOX XJ i 

sblx. .;. 
tasblssii 



.aloxilii. 4-.., 



ibdl OBOd 

-fj'iooojB fcna jMooea-xc^newcf 9il;t to leiJel -wox millnco oS datv •« 

• alBd olJaeiaoii flvroait ©cf otf 

AB I \^;rTt!;AR'j laaoaiaq :t86brtbi rUl.V 

".J-neJalasTt 
-filjsgsi ai^iilalqaioo lo aslisa b sbfiffi lll^^clelq ,^£?I ^d'Si/aXiii al 
»JE>I1W a;^aijslqffioo bt&s to iluzoT. a sa bOB ^led a^loiot to ^aemitda aal 
,iS iaimuA no ; ilo &*i9;ii&l ecL" in aallk dStv bBitetaoo 



-12- 

1936. As will be hereafter shown this Detroit laeeting of August 26, 

1936, furnished in large measure the basis of plaintiff's original 

complaint. 

There is a direct conflict in the testimony h.s to what actually 
occurred and as to what was said by those present at the ineeting in 
Philadelphia in November, 1935. ^he testimony of /-lien is contradicted 
in all material respects by the testimony of Wilde, Pllen stated that 
he and v.ilde entered into an oral agreement at said meeting that defend- 
ant would furnish plaintiff 3,750*000 pounds of iiair daring the year 
1936, 937*000 pounds of which would be ascribable to each quarter of 
said year at a price of 6-1/2 cents a pound for the first quarter, tbs 
price for the succeeding quarters to be '♦the average price paid by 
defendant to tanners for liair of such kind or quality plus 10 per 
potxnd.'* On the other hand Wilde testified that the extent of his oral 
agreement with lllen at the Philadelphia meeting was that defendant 
would deliver to plaintiff 937*000 pounds of hair during the first 
quarter of 193© at 6-1/2 cents a pound. 

In substantiation of iois claim that the price fixed by the 
parties in the alleged oral ag^-eement for the year I936 was one cent 
per pound above the average price paid by defendant to tanners for 
the last three quarters of the year Allen testified that on the 
occasion of his conference with IVilde on April 28, I936, in defend- 
ant's office, "I asked Mr, Wilde what the price of hair would be for 
the second quarter. Mr, ivilde called in somebody from the bookkeeping 
department, and in front of me, asked them what the average price was 
that they were paying at that time from the tanners. Ihe bookkeeper - 
his name I do not know - stated they were paying six and one-half 

cents per pound, Mr, r/ilde in turn gave us a price of seven and one- 

on hair 
half cents per pound/for our second quarter." He testified further 

that at the conference between himself and Wilde on July 22, 1936* 

when the contract was made for the sale of hair by defendant to 

plaintiff for the third quarter of I936, "I again inquired the price 

on it for the third quarter. Mr, F/ilde stated there had been no 



( 

-SI- 
I.aii±3lio £*111i/ilj5lq 1o alaatf »iii 9iLUZB9a &%iaL al boAalaii/l ^bi^L 
xULauioB iBdw oJ^ an -(tnoail^BBJ oricT al iolLlaoo ioBilb &l enariT 

d'adit 69;IjbJ-b rrsll/:. .ebllW lo xaomiiJes^J a£l:t \;«^ a:toeqaoi iAii&i&oi 11a al 

-baelsb tesU ^tie^m blse iB &tt9afi9tii& l^io aa oial bdidins •tlii m^ fltfi 

ia»% axU gnliut) 'ijLaii 'to cUxu/oq CK30,0^t^£; llldniuilq deixfu/J: bXjJow iai^ 

I0 -iS^iiiifp rioij© oJ slcfatfiioaxj »d Jblx;*w\flbl£tw lo abswoq OOO^^i^ i,^^ 

erlj ^iQC^Tsirp taill srfd- lol fcru/oq s siaoit S\I-d lo eoliq « J^is aaex blae 

laq if! «jyXq -^cfiJLsXfp lo bnM ribjue lo ilad nol aidrmeJ oi^ iasbasli^ii 

Ibio eM lo ;tii©;txe 9sii ^edi b&rttizeS ebird ba&ti ladio tdi nO ".finpoq 

;fiX£lu3s^9b ^adi sbw s^l^^^^ sJLriqlsbfillrf^ sxi^ ^« A»IIA cUiw ^aoadd^fjs 

;f8al'i sxU ^aliub iljiti to Blwxttoq 000 ^\t? Illial^lq. oi nsvilob ijjj/ow 

.{kojjoq a 8;Jii'3o S\X-^ ij» o laJijaup 

eriJ- xcf bexJtl eoliq arid' d^sxlcf atiulo aJtxf lo aoliAHaA^zdise al 

iaoo sao asw bi^l i&ex oAi lol J^fl©ia99':i3« Isto bo^ells etU at asiiijaq 

10I aiQimsct oJ- d-iXfiJonslsb x«f blaq aol'iq esanavs ©ili evocf^ bm/oq aaq 

adcf flo ^fjsxU beilWaeJ- nsIlA rtaex »rii lo aisiiBUp eeidi iz&l ori^ 

-fiaelsb at ^^i^l ,62 X±rtqA Jio sbllV, jcWJtw ©one'iolnoo airi lo aolEBOOo 

lot ©d bXjJow ilBd lo eolaq Dd;:^ i^sdw sbXlW ,iM baoiajs X" ,©oXllo e'cfaa 

3aXqed2i:^oocf exlct iso'xl x^o<^®<^oa xiX bsXX^o sbllvl ,iM .isctifirp f>noo9a odd 

asw ©oi^q S8B19YJB sri^ itssiu msdd bsalaa ^em lo iaoiJ al bos ^cfflsattiLBqeb 

- •ieq«>93l5lood srfT ♦aisiiitsJ 0il;t jBorrl &al:t iadi is ^t^l^aq, sisw xsdj- ctaxtt 

lXsri-'&iK» ftns xJte gni^isq »i8w x«>dd' beitacts - woioaJ ;f ox- ' :ajan aid 

-sno briB nevoe lo asliq b zfs &vsa n-ujd' fl± abX^ ,i24 .bnj-oci '-"^<I 3^«®J> 

ilad no 
ledc^'n;! b9XlX:te©^ ©H "»iefi&jup brtooes ixfo iol\&mfoq -xeq eia^o Ilad 

t.^c.^1 %2S xXwTi no ©bXXW iluis IXssiirJtri n©ewjed sonoialnoo 9di i& d-jad-t 

o;? iOjibasl&b xd tlad lo sXjss sxlo 10I ebsia ajsw ^roBO^noo arid" naidw 

0oJ:iq ed^ bsiJtiJpxxJ; nXjs^s I" ,^c.^X lo lei'amp biM^ edi tol llUxxXaXq 

0£'. .-•. ' ' ' '■■■.'."'./ ...... .... ^^^ ^^ ^^ 



-1> 

change in the tannery price, and the price woixld be seven and one- 
half cents to me for the third quarter,^ 

Wilde, testifying in reference to the conversation between 
himself and Allen on April 28, I936, stated that he did not "call In 
anyone and ask them what the price was - what prices were being paid 
to tannersj that no one came in and told him in that conference that 
the price being paid to tanners was 6-1/2^," but that lie did agree 
with Allen at that conference that the price for ttie second quarter 
would be 7-1/2 cents. He also testified that in the conference with 
Allen on July 22, 1936, which culminated in the contract to furnish 
plaintiff vdth hair for the third quarter, he discussed with All®n 
"the hair sitixation in general, the acute shortage of hair, also 
further s&le to him of 937,000 pounds of cattle and calf hair at a 
fixed price of 7-1/20;" that he did not tell Allen en tliat occasion 
"that there ha.d been no ciiange in the price to tanners and the price 
would be 7-1/2^5 " that "I only told him the price was 7-1/ 2^ per pound 
^«->* I did not tell iilia that the price to the tamaers was 6-1/ 2^," 
and that Allen did not inquire "what the price to the tanners was." 

The testimony of Densten and Horwich corroborated that of Allen 

to some extent as to the general trend of the conversation at the Phila- 
delphia 
£ meeting, both in respect to the agreement made there being for 

the yesj 1936 and in respect to the price to be charged for the iiair 

for the last three quarters of that year. However, Densten, Horwich 

and Wallin all testified that they did not know what actual agreement 

was reached between Allen and Wilde, 

In view of the sharp conflict in the testimony of the witnesses, 

the documentary evidence in the record unquestionably became a decisive 

factor with the trial coui't in its consideration and determination of 

the factual issues presented, "\Vhere there is such a direct conflict 

in the oral testimony, documentary evidence, like the correspondence 

between the parties, becomes of paramount importance. Such evidence, 

if pertinent, is controlling, since it is the best evidence and in 

every way more satisfactory and convincing than the recollection of 



"Bixo bsiB a9v&t 9if bluow eoliq sri:' baa j&oliq xisicuifi ?>tii nx osoarf^ 

Lit Ilflo" :fon fo±i> erf &3dS hfits&t »d£^I ,8*i linqA no nelli hna llozahi 

:^£rf^ donsnelaoo SatH at stlA bloi bus al efluo eno on cf.-jd:^ tsiexma^ o^ 

leiiBvp bcooee siW lol soirKf arW' cr*jrt:f ftartsielwoo tfsftf d^fl n«IlA ri^lw 

i£*i:w ©ofls-jslnoo erid' nJt i.jM b!?>ll±^eM oel-a »R .actnso S\I-V ecf bliKiw 

risiaii/l oci i"oel[;t£too 9ri<^ ni £>8;taiilffi£i/o ilolilw ,^£^1 ^SS yIwV «o n^IIA 

xiellA rid-Jtw bsieeirse Ijb aci ^tei1&L'p fetJW^f axW lol rf±Bif ri^lw llld-nluXq 

oeliti ^ilAil lo ©gBCf^oxle ©^jl'ob eii:t ,Ifin9t«»8 ni aoi:fBv:^lz lijsri ©lisf" 

s ^a ilmti'tLao bns s1J9bo to abor/oq 000,V£? "^o ralri o;J- alee isrfd-rurt 

noiSBOOo JaxI;^ no nellA Iloit ion bib »ri Jsrid "t^S\I-\ to 90±iq b^x'll 

eol^q ati:t bna ztsna&i^ o:i eoliq 9cLi al esfmffo on xzftMf bati oiQdi t&tii*' 

brasoq rteq ^S\I-V e^w &s.jtiq oxfcJ- aid bio* y:Xxio I" cTacI;* * j^S\I-V •sf blx/ow 

"t^sM-o Bisw zieiJLtact odJ ocf ®«>J:iq ed* i^firid- atlri Ilod doa bib I *** 

*\-dtstf ^'XBivLsi Qiii od )tt'iq •lid dariw" •ilirpnl dOit bib aellA dexid bxis 

flSlXA lo iAdi beSiiiodoTi.'OO riolwjoH bne a^tae^ "Xo xaomlia^i odl 

>&lhi1 Mi iio aolSiiSi&vci.ot> ©rid lo ixit-ti Leti^aa-^ ©rid ©d a^ &n»ix& «afo« od 

aJtflqIsb 
lol aoiecf »aerld ©bad djaBaeensii ©rid od doeqeen al diod ^-^aliBetn \ 

nlRd QiiS lot bQ'^i&siG ed oS «&Mq edi oi do&qa»i at baa bi^l im&x ^di 

iioiwioH ^a*>i^xi&C, ^lavowoH .tsoaj; d/srid 1© aiftdnaxrp 9«vLi deal 9di lol 

dfieatss'ias iBixdorj dariw woxsnl don b±b xeild ;^fii[d' b^Htli&Bi ll& allLs^ ba& 

.sbllv,' bns fldlXA a9Mrd«»<f b&rfosstc a aw 

^gsasendiw add lo xnc«i^a€>^ ©rfd al iolltnoo qissdz »di lo we±v nl 

©vlaiosb 9«i399€f \l<ieaoli&9ifpasf bicoce^ &di al eoaefelva x'^^^^^BOJOob erid 

lo floidfinHunsdeb fcne noldsiebisnoo stl al d'U/o© lal-id ©rid ridiw nodasl 

iolltaa^ dosiJtb s rioxre 3± en®rid ©ns^*» .b^dnatetq aecasl iBifdssl »rft 

©©ndbnoqg^aioo »di »^ll ,«on»blva xrcs^iXMDVdofr ,x»»al;de©d L&*ic Bdi al 

^ooasbJrre rloi^Ja , »oxiBd loqal drt«©at«»!t3q lo «»aioo®«f ^eeidiaq aiild as&w&€><i 

al fine ©onablva deed ©rid si d± e^nia ^gnJtfloidnoo si ,dn»nJEdi©q 11 

lo iKJidoaXXoooi t^ • 



-14- 

witnesses as to conversations which occurred more than two years 

before,'' Toppan v. McLauglxlin . 120 Fed, 705, 

Subsequent to the meeting in Philadelphia in November, 1935* 
plaintiff or Allen forwarded fifteen letters to Wilde or defendant con- 
cerning hair purchased by plaintiff from defendant for delivery in 
1936 and in not a single one of them is there any reference made to 

y 

the oral agreement claimed by plaintiff to iiave been entered into with 

defendant covering the piu-chase and sele of hair for the entire year 

1936. Neither was any reference to a contract covering the year I936 

contained in any of the eleven letters in the record from Wilde or 

defendant to Allen or plaintiff. Even in the letter written by Allen 

to aide on November 25, 193^, which marked the break in the relations 

between the parties, there is not even a suggestion of an agreement 

covering the entire year. The following passage is found in this letter! 

''On August 26th, you visited our office and explicitly stated 
that due to market conditions you could not reduce the price of hair 
for the last lUarter and would continue on the saiue basis of price 
which you were then furnishing us, namely, 7-1/2 per pound, 

"Does it seem possible to you that xm would wait until the 
last month of the last quarter of the year to d teraine a price fop 
the last quarter shipments," 

The foregoing language indicates tiiat plaintiff placed its dependence 

for its supply of hair for the last quarter of I936 at 7-1/2 cents per 

pound upon the asserted agreement of August 26, 1936, rather than upon 

the alleged oral agreement for a year, which it now contends was entered 

into by the parties at the meeting in Philadelphia in Ilovember, 1935. 

Wilde's reply of November 27, I936, to Allen's letter of Kovember 25, 

1936, is in part as follows? 

"Under no circumstances have I ever gone on record to assure 
you hair for the last quarter of I936 and stipulated a price at which 
the hair would be delivered to you. It is entirely out of the question 
that, as you state, on August 20th I would have been in a position to 
quote you a price that would be effective on or after October 1st, 
Conditions at that time certainly did not warrant us in setting a 
price so far ahead." 

There certainly is nothing in the language used by Wilde in this letter 

to indicate that defendant felt that it was burdened with a contract 

to deliver hair to plaintiff during the last quarter of I936. 



r 

.vlO^ .Jbe"? Oi>X ^l;ULlli&sssidqU .v figqqoT ".soiolecf 

oJ- e&sn »0fi9i«ie? xa& d*x»>rij aJ^ £i»il^ lo aao sl'^aiz & ioa at iuiA d£^I 

r&Bx siJti^no erld- lol liiui lo ®Xaa fioA •»a«[»^wq arW auliavoo J^xi«J!«»»lei 

^£^X laox JcU gxilrrovoo ^JoaiJno^ £ o^ aaiieiels^ Y^a sbw i9ri;tX©ll .t^^^X 

10 9i)XXW noat bioosi exf^ xrJt aia^^eX iioveXo »ri;t lo ^oja al beaXaiaoo 

a&llu y;^ a»:iii^aK ^e;J*9X esii al iisvK .llldfllaXq 10 jieXXA od- iasssa^lab 

&aoti&l9t ©rW rrl ilBeao erid^ b»iiAffl tLoldn t<i£?X ,^S lecfcevoK ao ©bXXW od^ 

d^jisursefiss ixs lo col^aegs^e £ xx»V9 doa al stedS ^eeZ^^taq erid^ ueawd'ecf 

inacf^dX aijSct «X fcraro't ei egiisaBq aclwoXXol ©££! .ise^ eai^/ie exlj gnXievoo 

5»^ij^8 -^cX^iDlXqx© bxi« solllo -wo j&e^JisXv A/o\ ^xitd-i ;Jei;;sjL)A aO" 

ilBti lo DOl'xr -■ 'r:!bei Son hi nldibnoc ■ -; - • 'isdi 

»oXiq lo a." 2 erfct ao s: oti bciQ •. icol 

&di Ll.iau Jlo-w ijXrow qw i?:di vox o:' '■'<••■■"■- - -■ ' •- ---/-(« 
lol ©oltq £5 exilc:i«d^ 'fc o;f i.sex add^ 1© aoin J-sbX 

, ^onsMsqsb ad^i JbeoaXq 111. ..u. -l.^ ^ad^ asiaolbnl ©SBJiaxueX gxiloaoiol ©xiT 

^sq a;^ii©s AX-\ is d£^X lo ■xsj-n.swp d-asX ©rid^ nol ilad lo X-tqqi/s »|i^ Wl 

rioqi; a&di latUsi ,^£9X t^^ dajjgi/A lo J-nsateeias bo^aeaes sxW aoqu brffroq 

b9i9d^n9 SBW ebasd^nos won dl doXxiw ^iji^x ^ '^'^^ ia9BisQ'fgB laio begeXX^ exii 

• ^L^i ^iscfittsvoil fli «XxiqXe>baXJtxl<I al aflXdeeui ©rid- ;ts eeld-iBq ©ild' \d od-flX 

,^S astfiasvoW lo i&&ieL a'nsXXA od^ t^£?X ^'^S; iQdmevoVl lo '^qsi a'ebXl* 

«ewoXXol aa iiaq nX aX ^^t^l 

eisJQ&B oi biooc*j nc 0x103 i-^vs I avuxi &9on~.&?-trjjoti:o on i3bnW 

■rfw d^s soXaq B ^ £>t^X lo if>:: 'j 

3iip silj lo di/o .jjox od - J 

oJ aoidlaoq a nl Ksisu" avmi blhUM 1 rid-oi. ^taj;;^*;.^ fio ^rsd^woa iJox bi* ^w^i^io 

.;j-.?I •I'.'d'oJ'oO 'isdl*; 10 no ©vXvto&ll© sef bXuovv usrid soi'xq & uox sd'oi/p 

t93 cX gju d^fLiTisw cJ^oia bXb xXiiiac^rieo ataXd^ d-ad^t c^a sjioXdXbaoO 

".bsaria isl oa ooXiq 

i9d^d-eX aXii;i al ©bXi^r ^tf bean ogBiJ^flfiX &d:i al ^aldooa ei ^XnXsd-iso snsxIT 

doisrtdixoo s xtdXw baasbrufcf bsv il iadt il&t d^nabcelsb d^srid^ eiaolbal oi 

,o£^X lo t&iiQvp ^aaX arf^ soXli/b llicfflXsXq oi ^lijad; asvlXeb at 



-15- 

Wilde's letter to ^llen of April 28, 193<^> axid Allen's reply 
thereto, heretofore set forth, constituted a written contract between 
the parties whereby defendant v/as to furnish plaintiff with hair for 
the second quarter of 19 36, It will be noted that this contract was 
complete in itself as to quantity, quality, price and terms of shipment 
and that the laxiguage used in Wilde's letter imports a contract of sale 
as of the date of this letter. There is no reference in either of the 
letters as to an oral agreement covering the year 1936* 

It will also be noted that in Allen's letter to Wilde of July 
2, 1936, he stated that "v/e are very mueh interested in Imowing what 
your intentions are in regard to the hair situation for the third 
quarter. We are desirous of gettiaag settled on this item at your 
earliest convenience." There is nothing in this letter to indicate 
that there ?,'as an oral agreement for the year 193*^* v/hich vvould, of 
course, include the third quarter thereof. Nothing was said in this 
letter as to price. If defendant was already obligated to furnish 
the Allen Company with hair for the third quarter on the cost-»Pi"^s 
basis as plaintiff now claims, why the anxiety to get the hair 
situation "settled" for that quarter? 

Uilde and Allen, as already shown, did enter into a written 
contract by their respective letters of July 22, I936, and July 23, 
1936, under the terms of which defendant agreed to furnish plaintiff 
with hair during the third quarter of the year. This contract was 
also complete as to quantity, quality, price and terms of sMpment, 
It is s,ignif leant tliat no reference was made in the correspondence 
constituting this contract to an oral agreement between the parties 
for a year's supply of hair. Vdlde's letter to Allen stating the terms 
of this contract does refer however to "contract made with you as per 
our letter of April 28, 1936," in connection with uncompleted deliveries 
of hair due in the previous quarter. 

One of the essential elements of any enforceable contract of 
sale is that of price. It will be recalled that plaintiff's present 
theory as set forth in the amendment filed to its complaint at the 



( 

aesw^ecf cfoj3a;Jnoo aBiilTir b. Jb«tjj;tlJ'afloo ,iWio1 ^83 ©iplocfsuect «ol9v«cCf 
tol lisri itJlw T:'3;ijni;Blti ricia-url o^ saw iiifil>ael*l> \69-ztuiv teliiaq dxtt 

slaa lo io&TJaoC) » ad-^oqaUt i»ixel e'dbXJtA' lU i)*ei/ »s«i/](£i«I iiclct Jiiitt bos 
.^£^1 ^J59x *^^>^ S^l^ovoo ja0ia«»«3i« Imio ajb oJ «« 8rt©^;f»X 

•wox ^s a»iX Qlii;^ no l)©I;t;r oa saXJ^^s lo &j7oxt:B»£> ana •« .leiisi/p 

Qi&oHjOs. oi ueJ-tfeX sXrU uX jtnMioa aX ©ikiII ** . eoxzAiferaKio cTfisXXiwa 

lo ^l>XiK>w ilaXciw «b£^X xe&^c srU lol ;taea$>9iSi£ Xaiw lu e«ii •fdi twM 

&ijdi uX bX«£ BBW axiXfUoK «^eian;^ a»dn^f;p X>iXii^ etli eiujXuxiX ^esuroo 

rfaXfliiJl oi bBi&'^LL<iQ %ba«rtXj8 ejsw ooiiijnsldb II .©oX-xq oc^ ka -lorfd&X 

euXq-^goo s^IJ flo le^iiUJp Mlrfd' ^Ai lol iXari xld^X*' TCoaqmoO neXXA acU 

xtfiii &fli ^dS oi xjQijJXM BAi i&rfw ,30X6X0 won llXJaXsXq aa eXasd 

ViscToai/p ^fiftf lol "fceXct^ee" xioX^sxr^Xa 

n0ct;tX'm a oJnX iscfa© £>Xf> ,awoilE x^^s'^t* ea ,flsIXA bxis sblXv^ 

^£2 xJj^'t fisiifi to£?-t »^S \JmI io aisd-^eX »vX;to»q89i xteilJ^ \(i :^ofltt;tfloo 

llXcfnXaXq riaXriii/l o;t baartga iaabaQtetb doXriw lo acneJ mii t^baa t^£W 

8Bvr ioaad"£io«) airfT .iBsnj axld^ lo led^iaBp hilAi &Ai anXiwib iXari xI;JXw 

.Jnemqixia lo amisi Ima soXiq {%it.l&tjp ^xilia&up oi s& diBlqmoo obXb 

oonefcnoqasTioo ©rid- nl efcam caw ©ofle^alai on isAi iaiiOl'ihi^ii.& eX ^I 

aeXdiaq ssii ae&siod :tti9moei^a Xsio n« o;) ioe^inoo aXild^ ^liumsaoo 

ziaiBi 9di ^liaie nsS! " ' v '" .xtad lo xXqqx/a a'-x^jex a «ol 

'xsq ea ifox /UXw stoatii ju.-'icraoo' oj -iJ^vewoii «©len e^oi) ix>aii€ioo alsU lo 

8©Xa9vXXi^b fie^tslqaooau riiXw aoXioeruioo xxX "^^t^I t^S li'mA lo nss^^freX Wio 

,^o^iajjp ajJoXvoaq sxlcf ixX ax;!) iXad "lo 
iu juij-iifloo eXu.i^o-ij'irie ^ns lo actasmeXs XaXJ^aeeao 9d:f lo oaO 
iaBP.Biq a'llXcJ-nXaXq t&Ai bsXXsoei sd XXXw ;tl .eoXiq lo tA;t aX sl^a 
«il;J Ja ialBlaaioo ad-X oJ- beXXl ;tflOfiiJDiieiafi axi;J nX rld^iol Joe aa ■^•losxfct 



-16- 

close of all the avidence is that the price stipulated in the oral 
agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties at 
the Philadelphia meeting in Bioveiaber, 1935# was one cent a potmd over 
the average price paid by the defendant to tanners for hair ascribable 
to the last tiiree quarters of the year 1956. Allen's testimony was in 
conformity to this theory. In this conaection it is pertinent to 
examine prior pleadings filed by plaintiff in this cause. In its 
original complaint it alleged that a price of 6-1/2 cents a pound was 
agreed to for the hair ascribable to the first quarter and tliat "the 
price of the hair to be delivered the succeeding quarters of the year 
1936 should be such sum as was thereafter agreed to between the plain- 
tiff and the said d^^f endant j " and that "on .^.ugust 26, I936, plaintiff 
and defendant agreed that the price of the hair ascribable to the third 
and fourth quarters of the year I936 should be 7-1/2 cents per pound." 
These allegations as to the manner in which the price was to be deter- 
mined and as to the agreement of August 26, 193^, fixing the price at 
7-1/2 cents for the third and fourth quarters were realleged in plain- 
tiff's verified answer filed herein to defendant's counterclaim. The 
same allegations were also made in a sworn answer filed by plaintiff in 
a suit brought against it by defendant in Delaware to recover on the 
same claim asserted in the counterclaim. 

In the face of the written agreement of the parties of July 22, 
1936, covering the third quarter, plaintiff was, of course, forced to 
abandon the position taken in its original complaint that a price of 
7-1/2 cents a po^ind for the third and fourth quarters was agreed to on 
August 26, 1936. Notwithstanding plaintiff's cost-plus theory as to 
price set forth in the amendment to its complaint and the statement la 
its brief tha.t it is on that theory it relies, strange to say, said 
amendioent also contains the allegation that "on August 26, 193^, 
defendant stated to plaintiff that the price of the hair ascribable to 
the fouxth quarter of the year 193^ would be 7-1/2 cents per pound." 
It will be noted that in tills allegation the alleged agreement of 
August 26, 1936, purported to fix the price for the fourth quarter only 



i©vo fcmfoq B d^aeo eao e^iw »^l?X ^lofliaavoSI ni ^l&mma AJuiqXeLsIlxf^ «il^ 

o;J jataal>t'x©q al J-i noiJosfixioo aiiW aX ,\T.OBtU &Mi &i VXaiolaoo 

e^^Jt al «9BJU«9 8i:^;t ni llici^fiXAlQ X<f X>GlXl «!Siii£>a&X% loinq eaiua^axe 

ajsw bxwoq js 3:^4x00 !:^\X-»o lo ewii^ a iBsU Im^^XIjb il ial&Xqoios) l^al^lio 

«l^" ^i^ boM mettiifsf;) i&xil 6£U o>t eldAalio&a iljui wli 10I oi baei^B 

i^s\ ecii lo &iBji&up ittlfcasooi/e ait/ beiovlleb tcf o;J tied mH lo eoliq 

-oLaXq 9eLi aeevii^d o3 b^Bxga lailmtifitii saw «« ou/a ilojja ad bluotLe ^c^i 

lllialBlq, i^i^l x^ iau^ti,. no" :tuii ban '*{iaAba9J^'b bJUa 9tLt_bati 111^ 

bnlsH eric} oi dlc(^«f±'i0££ 'xJiiS^i sjii;^ lo eolaq eflJ cI^bu^ bdaigii Jii6Jbael»|> btiB 

".biiifoq "laq ed^fceo S\X-^ Bd blaoiiz ai^l iAer% wiJ^ 1© a^e^iiO/p d^ijuol baxi 

^isieb dci oi saw eoiaq exi;t xfsXxiw al foaBm Bdi oi B£ eaoi:ts89XXii MadT 

Jj^ ediiq exl;^ s^^Xl «dt^X «c)S ;tsxf8i>rA lo ^OMBdOiafi aiiJ- o;t se .hius J>0iLta 

-flJiflXq jstjt ^ssXI^ei »n©ir ea9d-rtj8j;jp ittix/ol boA bilAi &tii lol ad^neo ^V-'iJ 

adT .flLtAloied^rufot* a* j^uBijaslci) oj JileiQxl ibslll lawanjs I>*lllaev a'llW 

ill lll'^alslq x^ boLlI iswariB niowe s «1 aiiMB AeXs siev 2aol;tBseIXa aiSBa 

sriit no ifivooei oj siBwalaCl nl ^aBjbn«lefc x<i ^i i^aniaafl ^ilaifond ;JxJJa b 

.mlaXoievtoboo 9ii;t nl f)9cfifi8es jsIbXo aioaa 

tSS xXi:/*, lo eaJutiaq SiVuJ lo J£i»in9©ria6 ns^/^tltw Bdi lo ©obI fiiic^ nl 

oi bBoioJ. ,9dTjjoo "io ,?,J3W im^nlslq ^i9ii2ssp biMi otli snlisvoo ^d£?X 

lo ©iJliq B ^Bd,^ iaxBlqmoo Jjsxxialio sc^i fll fl»2fA;J noJtc/JtEoq 9di aoba&d& 

ao oi b&9iQa bsw B'l&iiBisp Aiiuot bsia biMi &tii lol bnx/oq s a^aso S\X-Y 

oi ZH xioedj exiIq-d'Eoa s » lli;c?xiifllq 8fLt6ai,;^exi:^J:w;ro;t ,^c?X t^'^ ieis^vk 

al i&es&ei»is edo ba& :talfiIqj(aoo zil ei iaetabcwsiB odi al xWnol ioz &t>ltq 

bl&z x\Bn Qi e^siiiG ,8§lXo"i il xrosds i&di ao al il i£di lelid ail 

,^tt'X ,da iRUi^A ao^* isdi aQii&-^eLl& Bdi ^al^iaoo oel& d'aeiabaeais 

oi &IdsiCil'LO?.£. ilM 9rLi lo eoxiq sdi i&di llXJ-ox^sIq oi b&i&ie ia&bael^b 

^^bassom rj9q atnao iiXX-S! •<! blsso^ ^£^1 i^at 9d:t 1© ied-xax/p iltixfol dxi;t 

lo d-flSfflssia^ 1)9SdIXb i2>x(^ jHol^r>3aXXi3 zldi nl izai b&ioa 06 XXlw :fX 

XXno tsiiiitJe dJiisol adi -xol »oiiq BsLi xll oi b^inoq-wq ^dt^^l ,dS: :Jai;Bif-i 



-17- 

and not for the third and fourth quarters as alleged in the original 

complaint. It should also be remembered that Allen in Iiis letter to 

Wilde of November 25, 1936, stated that /ilde had agreed on tiie 

occasion of the meeting on August 26, 193^, to furnish plaintiff with 

hair for the fourth quarter at 7-1/2 cents a pound. Plaintiff urges 

that the several theories as to price advanced by it in its various 

pleadings are reconcilable in that on the occasions when the price 

was fixed it was determined on the basis of the price paid by defendant 

to the tanners. This argument is refuted by the documentary evidence 

in the record, as well as hy the admission contained in the allegation 

in plaintiff's earlier pleadings that the price of the hair for the 

last three quarters should be such som as the parties agreed upon. 

Plaintiff's original price theory made absolutely no reference to 

tannery prices or average t&Jinery prices paid by defendant, 

Mxile the price theory advanced by plaintiff in its earlier 

pleadings did not conclude it from thereafter advancing another and 

entirely different theory as to this essential element of the alleged 

oral agreement, the allege tions heretofore pointed out in such prior 

pleadings may be considered as admissions affecting the credibility 

of Allen, who was the only representative of plaintiff who was familiar 

v.dth the facts and who it must be presumed related the facts to the 

attorneys v;ho prepared said pl9adingj5,as well as the answer filed in 

the D"l£.Wcire case, ouch sworn admissions tlone are sufficient to 

cast suspicion on the merits of plaintiff's claim. In Joyce v. Hdmblr4f 

7Q Fed, (id) 366 (C.C.A, 7th), in passing upon admissions against 

Interest made in a sworn answer, the courc said at p, 339* 

"*** appellants* sworn answer contained the following 
allegation? 

"'Said Humbird represented to defendant thcit Clearwater 
Timber Company owned in excess of four billion feet of timber, 
more thiin ^0% of which v/as white pine of good quality. • 

"It is quite inconceivable that appellants, when seeking 
to avoid the possibility of a large money judgment by charging 
fraud as a defense, should assert in their pleadings that the false 
representation was tlaat 'more than ^^0% of the timber was white 
■iB* when in. fact, saidj^^presentation was that 60>i to 7!?% of the 



mber was white pxne. 



( 

-71- 

IfifilSj'^io ^tii nl beasili? es ets^isup ii^iuol baa bildi edi io1 ioa baa 

oi i9:f:rr:}I eld al nellA ctariJ beisdm&aot »d oela blsjosis &1 ,ialclqsAOo 

etH no bp»i8s bBii ofclliK ;f«fl^ beiaiz i^£^X t^S locffflevoVI to ebir*} 

ri:t±w ^l±:^^lBIq lizlnii/i oi ,oc<?I t^- SQU%v^^ no 3n±:ft.*»iii 9ri;f Tto noiesooo 

393ixr IliarLtfllHl .biufoq fi ^iaoo ^\X-V d's ieJn»iXfp f£:fixjol &ti& io1 ilsd 

BWOlOiiY 8^± £Z± il xd beooyvvba 90±iq oi ea 8t)±iosffd- laievae ©xW :i&di 

90liq srW nexfw enoiecoso srid^ no (t^i nl •Idsllonoos-T oib aaaJtfcBelq 

rrtBtaaTtaf) xcf bluq soliq ©riJ lo alsatf erii no bf<n±iaiod'»f) saw d-Jt bexll suv? 

ao±:)^je89lIi3 sri^ at boateiaoo iioiaajuaba ©rii x<^ 8*5 ■^•w ^b ^bnooei eri;t ill 

9rLt lol liBXl arfcf lo eoliq erW c^firic^ esnlfeselq leiliB* a 'lllitfllslq al 

.aoqr ftoefras e^jt:J'i£q •rid' 8b mua riexre ©cf bluorfE aietnsirp ©sixtt ^sbI 

o^ eortsielsn on xl9iulotd& ebsn X'xoerict evliq IbhIsItco e'lllcfnlsll 

.^njsfonglab -^cf bt&q asoxiq Yi»^nj3;t dsanevjs 10 aaoiiq xis«a«* 

isJtl'i-.^© 8;J^i ill Til^tnlslq "^d boonevb* x*ioeri^ «3liq oxf* Blh&l 

bOR lediooA anioxxfiv&B iQilBSiedf saoil il fibi/Ionoo ton bib asnlbselq 

bB%9llz Slid' lo &aemblf> Isldnsesd slrid od 2b \io9r(d dnoisltlb yX^'Ija® 

loliq risue al Siso fcsdnloq ©lolod-s-xeil anold3i«IIi3 sxtd ,dn»ai99iSia Xbio 

'idlXldlb&ao ©rtd x^d-oe11.a taol&alish& as b^isfilenoo ecf x^fli ajnlbBelq 

iBlXlfflBl aaw oriw ttlSalBlci to ©vldBdnsae'iq^'i xX^f© »rid saw oriw ^naXXA lo 

arid oJ edosl »rid ftsdcisi baauresTq f»d d-8Ma di orfw bus adOBl ©rid ridlvr 

jtl I)«X11 i9We££ii ©rid e>, XX sw e^^^anlbseXq tl*s bansqsiq oriw ex©naodds 

od ia&lolYU!& eia daoli anolsaiiaba niowrs douc .©eso ©lisw^XiCI arid 

b'iJ|;dJm/H ,v eo x o^ £^1 .uiIbXo a'tlldalaXq lo adlisai ©rid^ no nololqax/E dsso 

j8nlj3SB enoieelicBs noqJir gnleeBq al ^{d^X ,A,S,0)^8£ (b ) .bs't 8'^ 

s?Sc •Q J^s 1!>X68 dii:;oo ©rid ^•t8w«nB nnowa b al sbsm i3»iB:3:nl 

SfilwoIIol ©xld bsnlBdnoo levrariB nnowa »ednBlXeqqii ***" 

tnold^seXXB 

loi !&wi.%&lQ dsxld ia&haetQb od bsdaosoicai Siitf.T:r.rH bliic!''- 
^TOdflild lo dfssl nollllcf ixrol 1:t IT 

•,XdiI;jjyc boog lo eaiq f; \ofli 

jjcilsiesR nf^rfw j^d-nsllsrqs .tsxfd slriBVlapnooul ©dlrp si dl* 

Si .' f s lo x-j-tXxcfl-v blovB od 

©BX3I e. sasi} blsjode t? - es bi/sil 

©dlilw SivW iiK/id 9 10m' dsj" i^ioijdnsasiqsrt 



-18- 

"It is possible but most unlikely that counsel, in ascer- 
taining the fraudulent representations laade by liumbird upon wbJ.eh 
he was to base the fraud charge, misunderstood Joyce and the 
Biisrepresentation was 60;i> to 77---' of wMte pine instetd of 5^% 
as stated in the answer. It is also possible, but we tMnk quite 
unlilcely, thf t such pleading when s^iorn to by Joyce wt.s by iiiia not 
understood. On the other hand, the court might well assume that 
covmsel who drew appellants' pleadings obtained his facts from his 
clients; that the clients, vmen they signed their answers and counter- 
claims and under oath asserted the truth of the stateiiients therein 
appegTing, were in fact speaking the truth, and that the testimony 
subsequently given by said clients was at variaiace v.lth tiie facts," 

;i?e are impelled to hold that the trial court properly found the 
Issues in favor of defendant and th^^t no adequate reason lias been shown 
why the judgment should be disturbed, 

V^e also chink that the alleged oral agreement, upon v?hich plain- 
tiff relies, could not have been completely performed, according to 
its terms, within one year from the making thereof and that it is 
therefore void under the Statute of Frauds of Mchigan, the state 
wherein it was to be perforuied. 

In the view we take of this case we deem it unnecessary to 
discuss the other points urged. 

For the reasons stated herein the judgment of the Circuit 
court is affirmed , 

JUDGi^IEWT AFFIRM3D, 



Friend and Scanlan, JJ,, concur » 





: jL., 







-, w^ ■ . to 

ilO 

ioa'i ill 919W .jjni*iii©qqi» 

cmotia aeed ZMd aoai^oi »iMtsp»iM oa iiiiH bam fmatmKSuBi> to novsl al r&u^^I 

,b9&sxi'iiiJJ» 9cf ib lends ^ttetsgbui aiU -^w 
-rU^q lioJUlw xxoqij «^iieiad9*£Si3 Xi)io ijeisIlB siU Jadi :^liLi oel& eW 

o^ ^iXhzoxiOB ,£>9iiPiolneq xlec^oXqaux) need ev;iri :foa blssoo ,b»1X91 111* 

.fcsjiij e^tflioq laaJo 9rl;i eaisozlb 
tlJU'jiH edj- lo Jnoossbiit ^^ aXoied bBidie zaczASi attit ao'5 



40912 

HEKNING B. JOffi^SOK, 

Appellee, 

V. 

CHICAGO CITY BMK i: TRUST 'COi:Pj^Y, 
a corporction, as /trustee unde 
l^ust Uo, 2524, JtSEPH H. OP!gfER. 
ROYAL T.ii>:^^lTI CmPAIfY, ayim^i 
et al. 

Defendants, 




APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT 
COURT, COOK COUNTY. 



ON APPEAL OF CHICAGO CITY BAi« & TRUST 
COMPANY, a corporation, as trustee 
under Trust No, 2^24, 

Appellant, 



3(^5 I.A. 621"^ 



MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

Plaintiff, Henning S. Johnson, filed his complaint against 
the Chicago City Bank & Trust Company, as trustee, and others, as 
defendants, for the foreclosure of a receiver's certificate, which 
had been issued to him in a prior proceeding for the partial fore- 
closure of a trust deed prosecuted for the benefit of the holder of 
subordinated bonds and interest coupons. The trial in the instant 
case resulted in a decree of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff, 
from which the Chicago City Bank & Trust Company has perfected this 
appeal. Mo point has been raised on the pleadings which consist of 
the complaint of Henning E, Johnson and the answer of the Chicago 
City Bank & Trust Company, as trustee. 

On June 15, 1928, V.ollenberger & Co,, a corporation, made 
a loan of $200,000 to one Henry and Elizabeth Lutz, evidenced by 
a bond issue of 46o bonds of various denominations, maturing con- 
secutively over a period of ten years. The bonds, which were sold 
to the public, bore interest at the rate of 6% per annum, payable 
semi-annually, and were secured by a trust deed conveying to John 
J. Rahlf, an officer of Wollehberger & Co., as trustee, the property 
involved in this proceeding, Miich consists of two lots located at 
the southeast corner of South Chicago and Stony Island avenues and 



•^\ 



\ X 



^©islleqq. 



iH 



.XIHUOO moo ^TfiUc: 



•sct^cLiotfieioCl 



.In :te 






'ISd.A.l5^e 



TSl' 



lA wo 
.JnalisqqA 






.THDoo asrr "^o Korano but GSflsvijEci mvij-tue aoiTarrt; oTfiarasin .mj 

i-ajoliiSA^Jti-^-fl^Od aid belli ^noemlot .3 anlfinaR ^llWrLteW 

jfioliffr jScfxxoilWieo e'lsvisoei b lo sixraoloftiol aiW lol ^adriBbxielisf) 

-eiol lal^ijeq sxW lol snlbssooiq icoliq a fll flilrf o;t beustl neecT Jbjsil 

lo i»LIor{ Qdi lo cfllensrf »ri;t lol fcs^tx/ooaoiq iie»fc ^8i;"i:t s lo sixraolo 

c^^J8JexU edd' nl Isiact sriT .anoquoo ;l'a©i0d^nl bna abnocf beiBnlbiodsn 

^lliJalalq lo novsl nl sixiaoloonol lo eonosfi b al be;tljjzBZ ssbo 

alxi^t f)©d-o©li©q aari Xfisq'aoO iztnT * aCiuaa x^lO o^jsolriO scii dolilw mo^l 

lo Jalsaoo ifolfiw asnlbBSIq 9d;t ao beaisn iisftd bbxI ;taloq oK .Iseqq« 

ogsoliiO 9sii lo -cawaxie Bsii bOB ooznAol ,S snlnxisH lo ialalqmoo aiii 

^e9i^ini aa ,XRAq«oO ^ax/iT A sIoaS ^ilQ 

Bbaa (tnol;tBioqtoo & ^,oO i) ndgnddxidlloW «8S^X ,^X 9m;L aO 

•^<J bsonsbivs ^sd^i/J xWedssiXa bru x^t^^H ®co o;J 000^00S$ lo nsol s 

-noo sflliinfaia ^enolcfBrtliBoaab euolisv lo abnotf Od^ lo exraal bnod a 

bXoa »^9w rCoirfw ^abnod ariT ,a:tB9X ned- lo boiisq a idvo xX9Ti>tx/o©e 

eXcTfiX^CE ^wuaaa isq $b lo sc^src siii ia i&ai9ial &iod ^olXcJxjq edi oi 

axiol oi 3filx&vxioo bssb Sstni s '^d beiwosa ©19W baa ^■^Xlax/flrxB-lmsa 

■^ij-xaqoiq srlJ^ ^n&i&sjtJf a& ,. ^aiscfnsXXo'ft lo isolllo as ^IXilafl .X. 

im b9;f60oX ed-oX ow;^ lo Bist&aoo xfolxfw ^^uibssooiq elsH al bevXoval 

brte aownsvB brusXal "«6ao^a boB ogaolriO diuoH lo i©flioo itGsariitJJoa wU 



-2- 

79tli street, Chicago, The premises are improved v^itii two buildings, 
one a two-story torick and concrete restaurant building containing three 
public dining rooms and tliree private dining rooms and the other a one- 
sto3^ brick and terra cotta gasoline and automobile service station. 

On July 1, 1929, the luortgagors defaulted in the payment of a 
balance of ipl,000 due on interest coupons Series 2, and on January 1, 
1930, defaulted in the payment of the entire amount due on interest 
coupons Series 3, aggregating j^6,000. 

On ilay 17, 19 3^, '*»ollenberger & Go,, which had acquired the un- 
paid interest coupons of Series 2 and 3 aggregating i?7*000, filed its 
bill of coiiiplaint in the Superior court of Cook county, as case 
No, 518012, for the express piirpose of foreclosing the lien of the 
trust deed for the balance due on interest coupons Series 2 and 3» sub- 
ject to the continuing lien of the same trust deed as security for the 
payment of the remaining unmatured indebtedness evidenced by the 
principal bonds and by interest coupons iieries 4 to 10, both inclusive. 
This bill of complaint was joined in by Rahlf, the trustee, as a 
cocomplainant, for the sole and exclusive benefit of Wollenberger & 
Co, as the ovmer of the defaulted interest coupons. 

On May 20, 1930, an order was entered in that proceeding upon 
the application of Wollenberger 6c Co, and Rahlf, as trustee, appointing 
a receiver to collect the rents, issues and profits from the premises 
for the benefit of Vvollenberger & Co. 

Subsequent to the institution of that subordinate foreclosure 
proceeding, V?ollenberger & Co, acquired interest coupons Series Kos, 
4 and 5> wMch had respectively matured on July 1, I930* and on January 
1, 19:>1, and acquired principal bonds Nos, 1 to 10, both inclusive, 
aggregating iiao,000, which matured on July 1, 1930, and subordinated 
these interest coupons and principal bonds to the continuing lien of 
the trust deed as security for the payment of the remaining unmatured 
indebtedness of $190,000 evidenced by principal bonds Kos, 11 to 46o, 

both inclusive, and interest coupons Series 6 to 10, both inclusive. 

On August 26, 1930, Hahlf wrote a letter to Optner, the receiver 



,ajiLt£)IJtifd ow^ riJ-±w bevoiqial 9i& aealme^q aril .ogsoJixiO ,^e«n;ta di^S 
•BiAi antnlactaoo aniMlxid ^OBiu/jBifee'i