E3iort£nf;ed propert;/ on L^tnc!; th^t out of fr^.e net rr'^ceede of
such ««'le lie b»- ciirectcd to ^ ay the receiver'?;' ce-rtificntep
outatpndini, together with nil other clnin-p nr«in»t him »»
euch rt'ceiver, p.nd t>.".t nn/ woney reisRininc l>c nsid out under
the iurthftr order of the court. The ceupe yur -â– referred to
the raacttr in chancery to take tr.e evidence nad rejort hie
conclueions of Inn and fRCt, Apjellanto i ij ed objections to
ccrtair. itet:» paid out ly the receiver ior V'cich he h?jd taken
credit in the report and the chaster ovrrrulcd the ohjfctione.
t-xceptirtns to the maeter'p report were filed nnd iipon y»eBr«
in^, f.tfore the court there vere overruled and n decree en-
tered ftoproving the r^-'pter's report and ordering th»t np el-
Innts T)py the co8ti< fORde by the iieerinf.. nn the objections,
fror; vhich decree thii? Fm^eBl vmn tnicen. it .-'.opearp to be
the Titentlon of npr^elln^ntp that their cl«5im!» ehould be
pnid In full b'^frtrc any «f's»ct?» of the Bfnrer ''lay "orkif ore
np^licd in py^ynent of the itf^r.p objected to. In their or-
f.unent counsel for rr.ne.llpnt? ssy "*e ntfk. th»'t the decree
he Teverpert nnd tiie object ionc "be pustR'ined to the r^^ceiver'e
re-port, ond the receiver directed to ^i>y the claiir;.? of ttiese
creditor? out nf the a^ete nov^ in hi© pooeerfion n^ re-
ceiver of rhich, in the prooer Rdrainietretion jf afiairc i\9
receiver, he ehould nc^^ ".'•••<- in his pos^eF-rinn, "
^
Th<? c3if>inj of Tdv.'«!rd*-vi}l e Home '"rpde ("onl Con eny np-pe^r? to
conBift ol a note dat«<l l>.y V, 1912 fnr "iftf^C and Inter-
est tlaeraon nrxd i Ijalanoe of H(^43.11 on f^n c^.en nccount for
coal futniebed nrior to the recclverBhlp; th-'t «f the 1..A.
Kftllcr Comrjany of an onftn nccount for £ood? >?old ^rior to
' Prjtil A, lvl3, find that of 1: .J,J*effrei'e nM Con7T>!«ny of ©.
note d^ted Ju3y 25, 1913 for M8£?,60 and internet thereon.
A1.1 tiitse clmlsi? were unrecnred ond no stter.^* hnd been riad«
to leduce thesn 'O judgrjent, "'ne itcme in the receiver' p
report v?hlch seer: to ne objected to nre; th« itPtre of
551000 feee to Gueltig, and Fovfell, a? eo3icltcrr. for the
truetee in th< - foreclosure, $''1&00 ap fee? tr ' erry, Ocul-
tit-; and r-cwcll ar colicitors for the r<ceiver, f^co to i".'".
luth lor money sdvnnced prior to t! o rt'ceivership, certain
iteaip to C/tf.lieyer, ?')r. ,T. '".r^r'^n, â– ^. Trolhweyfr, r.nd r^^nlnp
Pippr>3d Co. ftnrt rl?o certain itc^ip fnr re-nirr. Apide
froBi the- Quer^tion vhethtr apv fl J ant*- l;pihg ci^irply unrecured
cxeditor .-?, nxe in popition to r/^ipe the question here eoutht
1.0 "be rpipeU, tiir decree of tV.e ^ourt Tivvear^' to be pub-
stantially correct.
The receiver issv^ed rppro.T'^inntely ^!14onc rorth
of receiver' certiiicntce, vhich v.'«re declr.rec^ to be a
iiret lit;n u.'on trie property xr the lisjid? of tyie receiver.
Conceclinij: thnt tVie alloVv-nce of J'lBCC to Ttrry, d'Cltig nnS
Vovell nt? soxicitore lor tl-.fi receiver were improTier, yet
the trustee ie not contfteting thnt ollovrince, v.nd the de-
i'icitmoy ivdtjnunt ior '*>2f>l6,16 in hii? favor vould ^^ore than
absorb that nc.ovnt. The evidence tende to rhot,- that the
rroceedp of the rt ceivcrnhi-n ?fi31 not be rjuflicient to -ry
the out-trtndinp; receiver*? certific«tep nnd the- deficiency
.4-
Jud47aent, alter paying the neoeeeary coi?t? of the recei>er-
©lilrv, sffide frrui ?clicitor'? iCe. ':'iie evideice furtli«r
ehotrt thr^t tlrie fees, f»llov'f'<5 Cv^Itig and ^ov/pll a? "solici-
tors' fcr the truetee in the i'ort.clornire ruit were -.ni'l "by
the ■bcndholtier»T^''^o "vv^re tlic Juc; m*^nt crcfJitorr- rmd !>.leo the
purcjificerc of the mortg.ti.iici'. •'■■roperty. '"he ; r-prit'ty nf the
Rllovmnre nf th-Pt fee, Tihich w?.r not ?»ic: out of .Tiy funds
in tht' r-"ceivf;r3hix', cRnnot be qutjrtior.ed here n?^ it HI'S
not afft'Ct Rprsellantc' rifhte or I'ceult in ?^ny injury to
thcEi. 'He o'b.jeoti.in to the ?,â– ,Iuth item of S'^f i?not
vel] tpken. It anpenrr thin - cney t,""^ sdvpnce'1 by 'uth to
K-eet the t.vonthIy payroll ixv'ritdiateiy prior to V-.t receivsr-
ehip, and tiifi receiver enjoyed tht benefit â– ^f fne laoor for
>which that a»oncy paid, Cloii«f - for current expenses of
the oruin-r«ry operation nf the bui?ine?i? incurred vdthln a
lifaite'i time before the receiver-thip vvero rrr^pt-^r chart.®*
aiifiinpt the receivership ftmd. ?4 Cyc 566. it vmr no doubt
upon this thfjory the trial court r^nov.-ed pt ■: t" • receiver
p«id, nppellxint, .'.dwardsville home Trade C:.... •., the isui-r,
of - ir^3 ior cool fvrnif'hed jvj«t prior to the r'?ceiver«hip -
/.8 to tlie " eyer, Bnr^^n, 1 robineyer r^nd "amla-p-r'inpdUl
it we the evidence ie not «>1to£;ether clear. '. ' '^ penre,
hov.'i-vcr, t}-^.t r.t tV.e tlr:G the hi] 3 to forfc.t ;> c- -v-*? filed,
there rt.t: t. inrge quantity of brick in the y».rd, cither in
the yilrfr or in senrvrfte -pilcf?. To ench Vilr, -^r -nile "was? at-
tf'ch(;d r Tlrcaid stating that puch kiln nr iJ id been
eold to one of the nlove n-.enticned T:.Mrtiep, r;. - - xnt; iiim, fi.nd
epch of them held fl. 1 i"' " ^ oRle for the brick rold hiia.
Appellants claiir there -■;«(? f>n nnp'^i<' bnln'^ce ri' .', 71*J.20 due
froir. iieyer jbcac for the brick eo purchjieed by him, e like
-5-
Ijrajsnce of .!«*12,C38 from B»ron, IrBQO froia J'rolimeyer end
f£56.SC from iJxoilnp-I^ippold. 'Triete "bill* ol «??^le v:€?rf
all ir??ai«d prior to the recfeivfer^hlp «*rid roi?.*' of the
partief had ^ iven <iotee for ?^ portion of th». -rice paid,
but the exact aajoiirt v^fich one ovef'. cmld not be deterT-ined
until n recount of the brick wns H'fid«. ApT«13nnts claisn
that neither the briclc r,or the different bfar-ncee d: e.
therefor^ Vrcre accounted lor hy tiie receiver. It dnes
appenr, however, that the rice of â– rirt: hcvinfj adrf^nced,
and the receiver, he *ing ordtre to fill, unutr nn «?i-ree-
Hient v?ith tiieee different parties? t^old th^, hriclc on t);eir
rsETjective nccounts?, and ti r't thepe nartle? ^r Pone nf
then n^reed, If th<- receiver vfovlf? '^ny the antpreBt v»!Or
the notes they lir^ci t;iven for the purchnce price they t/ould
forcf;o any profit, -he Banntr Cl>y oty.r J â– d received the
isoney on theee notes? by ?-pf ij niJifc' tie sHf.e rrior to the
receivership and the profite derived from thie transaction
v.tre fully recounted for hy the leeeiver. 'Jen the re-
ceiver TiPi?urr!ed control of the hupine"?? tnC. -roperty, he
lound these condition.? and he ws? compelled to take the
property up ne iound it. (Chicat^o Title c-. Tru^tC'o. v. Smitb,
Itb 111.417; "illani v. Aiuesbauni, 95 111 ,App. ';77) The itemt
of interos<t naid by hin in thip trnneactinp ^^trve properly
allowed, jvo sufficient len^'on nf;i? l.ten artv5-,r,ced v.'hy the
item? for "repftirr? and octterticnt?" stioulo not t>e sllovred.
1+ ie true thrit the r^lf^nt hf'« not Toe en oin'r^ted fince such
repRirp vere rrn.de "but they wre n:«de nfter the pl^^nt, as
Vf.'^r- cuptonv^ry, had bef.n doped for the vinter 'md it pt>-
perr? they v-ould bnve heen necesppry hod the rlf>nt h^•en
continued, "hey reerr. t^ : ^v«» '-e»em r»<5c: in o'^d faith and
the receiver wcs pi^operly fclven credit ir.r thera.
The evidence cloea nnt puprort the crntpntion of
appellant thnt Bartlett at;reed tr perve ar r<^ceiver lor
a. fee of 4'8?-2, th^t belnc the anount dne hici frcra the corc-
pajny Tor iiieurpnoc -irc-nivant . Ihe e.f -5 ointment of the rfc-ceiv-
er vaa» nneillury to the foreclorure proceedinj,', and 'W?»p for
the hentlit of tiJe r>,-rtleg thereto, and pojpellly other lien
creditors pn<.i not lor the heneflt of th?- orrlinary creditors,
rhoee clfiiiif ^rope rrior to the tiling of th« bill lor lore-
cloeurc, {'invnr: V. vla^', i47 3 11.375),
I'he decree in this o-<0e should he nn6 ie Rliinaed.
Affirmed.
':>oX to be rer-orted in full ,
iiu'k ni. b9 .1
/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copp of the OPINION of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mv office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mn hand and affixed the seal of said Court
at Mt. Vernon, this .^ .)^^y^ da^ of^Z^y^C^:/.
A. D. 191 .£.
Clerk of the Appellate Court '
o
Opinion Qti the Jlppellate Court
I
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun arid held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, the same
being the 26th day of March in the uear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.
Present:
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Presiding Justice.
^"'-ffofL Harrg Higbee, Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk.
THOMAS E. P0LEY, Sheriff.
And afterwards, to-wit: On the fifth day of April, A. D.^918, there was filed in
the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPIN^pN in the words and figures
following: \
1 I.A. 31
£RR0R:!TO
APPEAL FROM
Circuit COURT
Chicago Sandoval Coal Company,
Appellant
.Marion COUNTY
TRIAL JUDGE
HON JAMES...C.,-.MC...BEIIiE.,
Tcxn Ho. 49. Agenda tio*&6,
Oc toiler Tenn, 1917.
v.. A. l^etcalf.
Appellee
)
V. ) Appeal from >arion.
"I
Chicago "iajidov?il Coal Corni^^ny, )
Appellant )
Opinion ty Kigliee, J,
000- —
Thie ie an action on the caee brou^iht by appellee
to recover damnfes for personal in^juriee alleged to have
been euetained oy iiiia on iiept«aber 20, 1916 v.hile working
ae dock boee lor appellant at its mine at Sandoval ,111 inoie.
The declRrption coneistcd of peven counts, each
one allcti/ig in substance that appellee wne employed by
appellant; th^it in tlie course of hie employment it was hi»
duty to inspect the coal ae it woe duiftped from a basket on
to a s^creen, for the purpose of detecting? whether there
vroj? any eulphur or other im urltiee in the same; tyipt it
wa? the duty of appellant to turnieh appellee with e rea-
eonably p?»fc place in v?hich to work and that apTjellant
not regarding ite duty in that behalf, carelessly and neg-
ligently Inilc-d to provide appellee with a eafe plnce in
iriaich to i/ork in that it failed to properly protect appellee
atainst flying particles of coal, and ae a result thereof a
particle of coal struck appellee in the right eye destroy-
ing his eyesii^ht. i::ach count alleged appellant had tiled
v?ith the induetrial board its election not to provide and
•1-
.Oil tn»i
iituet-I.JLti>
j.^ ,,1 _ k <â– -ir â–
p«y compensation according to the provlpione of the work-
sen*? CorapcnBntion Act. The plea orf genernl ispue v?aB filed,
and upon trial before the court f»nd a jury r verdict wa«
returned for appellee in the pum of fc2000.
Counsel for both parties in their eitatements devote
coneiderable s»pace to ©t?5tine in detail the evidence showing
the construction nf the tipple, basket and screen where ap-
pellee worked, and the manner of opernting the eaioe. This
evidence ie quite voluiainoue, but under the view of tlie
case taken by this court it would be ueeleps lor the purpose
of this opinion to repeat euch evidence in detail here.
There ie no dispute as to the construction of the tipple,
basket or screen, nor is it disputed that ep-nel3ee wee in-
jured and as a consequence lost the eifrht of r.ie right eye.
Appellant olfered no evidence on the trinl but at the close
of appellee's evidence requested the court to direct the
Jury to find appellant not guilty, V/hereurson appellee, by
lenve of oourt, reopened hie cr^ee find offered in evidence
a certified copy of appellants notice, filed with the In-
dustiiol ..'OA.rd, of its election to reject the provisions of
the ' orknien'p CompensRtion Act, While this certificate did
not bear the seal of the Induetrial i;:o«t.rd, the court admitted
it in evidence, l^o proof whatever was made as to the post-
ing or service of the notice as required by section t?.© of
the Act. Appellant then renewed its motion for b peremptory
instruction, which w^s ^,( ain denied. Appellant insists
thRt the trial court erred in r.oldine it had jurisdiction of
the cause and that its veremptory instruction should havs
"been given. As this judtJ.»ent must "be reversed for other
reasons and any informality of in^iuf liciency nf proof in
-3-
( .v,^
TtQ^rd to the question vdiether appellant had rejected th«
provisions of the Workmen's Ctsnpeneation >iOt, may be remedied
on another trial, v/e need not discusf? the question here.
On the trial appellee w?»e permitted to prove, over
the objection ol appellant, thnt the /ecreen could have
been made laore safe, if it hnd been protected by a iine
wire, a screen or niece of eheet iron. The question for tlrie
jury vvae not whether the screen could h'?ve been road* safer,
uut whether it was reasonably srfe in the condition it then
TTRS. in the cape of Kennedy v. Chic?(f o & Carterville Coal
Co., 180 1 11, Aprs. 42 in an opinion touching p piTiilsr ques-
tion, it vne p-.id "?he question before the jury, hot/ever,
vae not ap to whether othier jnodes v/ere jj'^fe or safer, but
was the r-.ode adopted re-^-sonably r-afe and our Sirpreme Court
has held it to be reverpible error to ^horf that a safer Kiod*
could ii'ive been adopted", citing :^rocpman v. lir?.ke Standard
ifi.achine ivorke, 232 111.412, arid Casey v. eedy levator
l»fg.Co.,142 lll.App,126. Thepe cases are in point here and
under their auti'iorities it was reverpible to rfirrdt this
evidence.
The court at the request of erpellee gr- ve the fol-
lowing instruction to the jury, "The court inptructe the
jury thfiit it is the ('uty cf the defendant to furnish and
provide the rjlsintiff witVi a suitable and reseonably eaf*
place in which to perform the vorTc nnd l-^Vor recuired of
him; en'5 if you find from 9 -preponder^jnce of the evidence
in this case that the defendnnt failed and OT:ltted to fur-
nish the plaintiff with a reasonably psfe pl^ce in which to
work in the manner ch«rf^ed in the declaration, and by rea-
son ol its loilure to s>o provide a reasonably safe place,
if the evidence eiiows that it did fail, then the plaintiff
-5-
; A
U»wUi
ti
would be entitled to recover any cnmRfcee tttf-t he might have
euptained, if any hqve heen ptiowi "by the evidence." Ly
tliie instruction the Jui-y are told in substance they should
find for tVie appellee if they believe from a preponderance
of the evidence that appellant Yk^d Iniled to furnieh appel-
lee a re«Bonp.b3y Pf^fe plrce in which to -work, "hey nre not
told thnt snich fp. ilure to provide a reaeonaMy enfe r;l«ce
to work must hf^ve contributed in some manner to appellee's
injury. This instruction undertook to «!<tr:te conditions
\vhich v.ould entitle appellee to recover a verdict in hie
favor, and as it wholly f?^i] ed to require cpburI connection
between appellee's injury and the ne^ H&ence charti«d against
appellant, it was trroeneous. (i;ur?t v. kadi sen Coal Co.,
201 121.App,205) ^he instruction wnp further defective in
that it informed the jury ttiat \mder the circunistance?
named appellee v/ould be entitled to recover any dnme^es that
he might have sustained, if p.ny had \yeen eliovm by the evi-
dence, Y,'itli0ut confining hip dprnafveu to those stated in the
declaration, 'r-i? left the jury free to arsees v/hatever
damafces they mifcht tiiink un^iiRr the evidence, appellee had
sustained, umfuided '»y any lef.nl rule of daroai^e;?, and -without
limiting them to the dwnn^jes charged in thf: declaration.
iJuch instructions )if?ve been condemned hy our courti? of apnesiU
(i^ogiis V. Iowa Central Ky.Oo.,187 lll.Apr,.6Sl and authorities
there cited). This instruction alpo improperly stated the
duty imposed by law upon f?nT.ellant in informinfe; the jury,
"It it? the duty oi the defendant to furnish and provide the
plaintiff with a suitable and reasonably pf f e ;lrce in which
to perform the labor ann vork required of him", v^ereas under
the auti.oritiee it wf« only aprellant's duty to uee reapon-
able cnre to provide him with a reasonably snfe working place
-4-
(Colline T. Vifc«tena ^^lectric Co. 178 ill.-^'pp.as) An exami-
nnti'^n of the record eiiowa that thic instruction wa* not
cured by other instructions given.
i'or t}ie reaf?oni? a'oove given the- judpment in this
ea«« will "be reversed nnd the caure remanded.
He versed and remanded.
Ka'i-ride, J., took no part on the hearing of this case.
Mpt to he rtjported in full.
-^
MK
/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of
the State of Illinois, 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 mg office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set ma hand/jind affixed the seal of sa
at Mt. Vern6h, this .^ .L,..\£Zy^3±. dag o,
A. D. 191 "
o
Opini
/
A
e Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, the same
being the 26th day of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.
Present:
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Presiding Justice.
^ — "ffon. Harry Higbee. Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk. THOMAS ^. PASLEY, Sheriff.
J"-
And afterwards, to-wit: On the fifth day of April, M D. 1918, there was filed in
the office of th^y Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an (f'INION in the words and figures
following:
\
'\.
Prank- Wadley, \
Appellee
No. 65
October Term, 1917.
kj
Schwartz. E.ro.th.ers.Ep^^
Appellant
211 I.A. 44
APPEAL FROM
pi.*y. - COURT
East . St.Loui.s cSB^anf
TRIAL JUDGE
HON .E...-L-.. -BRaWlT-IlTG..
fl
T«x« Bo, 05. Agenda iio^2i
(â– â– ctober Ttrra, 191?.
jrrank «adlty, )
)
App el !«• }
V. ) Appeal frc-m i ity .ourt
^■cti-vitHTtz }*voXhere '. xnrepi? tori^pRny, ) of it-aet ;^t« ]oui0.
)
App«lXant. )
Opinion toy rlgb««, J.
— oOo»—
App«ll«c Irank Wadley brought lui notion lor daa«ig«t
a«!,aln8t appellant ochvartss itrothere r>xpre8^ Company,
to recovor lor injuries tuwtained by hla Horember P?,
1W16, in a x'Ublic etre«t in the city of ..aet -t. oul^,
Illinois, vitlch h9 claims vera oauMd by tha ne^ lii^ence
of the eeryant of appellant.
TJiere were two counts in the declnration ivt the
eecond w 9 taken froia the jury hy the court at the enn-
oluplon of y)lflintiff*o evidence. The firpt count upon
which the c«ee went to the jury alleged thet epT'ellant
on the day naaed wa«i peseeppcd of ftnd operoting « cer-
tain exj>Te9B and delivery bu?ia«s«» in and about the
city cf caet iit. i oul@ nnd in connection therewith cer-
tain ten'^e, wai^on? and bu£:gie9 were ueed whic}i were under
Uie control and management of ite eerv'ant^; that n cer-
tain eervant of apv^llant named Kenry uoy wae in cn.rfcc
of one '<f its noreee and bui;<^ie8 en^at^ed in it« bu«ineop:
that .oy carelees'ly and ne^i^llgently drove and man«t.ed
said horee over a public street in mid city eo a? to oauipe
d9tii» t^ tonic II
!»i;»v •tuCI
nuai oliJi/Xo
em x^b 9dt no
. nt
i-^ X0kk
•If 10 tjiO
,-iJ
i:j»«
th» 0«a« to run upon And ^^.alnet appellee viiiO vmo th«ii uid
t2:ier<; in the exeroiw9 ot due cnre for hi» ovm SAlety and
that by reaxton of ruch ne£llgeno« on the part of eald ser*
vant. uppellee wn» tl:i;«n and there hurt, orueyied, Vruieed
and Injured. ^Tie Jury returned a verdict in favor of
apV'Cll«e in the sua oi $lCTi for t?hioh anjount Jud^jnent war*
iilvmt against ax^pellant and the latter hns prorecuted an
appeal to t^iin court.
Appellant olaiisp that tl^ie verdiot le againat
the ireifeht of tJie evidence and that the court erred in not
dir«otir^ a verdict in its f&vor and its argument in thie
court i« devoted solely to tl-*« disoueeion of the quefftiont
of fact involved in the onee. Broadway in the City of
i2.aat St* i.ouif! run? eaet and weet and ^ain etreet rtorth
and eouth, and it wae at tiie interecdtion of tlieee tv.o
street* where the traffic is hi?avy that the injury occurred.
Appr i^, j«j sixty six yesrp of a£,e, wae at the tiwe
of the necident, in company with anotJ^ier man going froa
the toutheaet comer of the intersection of esid two
street?, dia«;onRny ncroep to the northwett comer, ^ioy,
a servant of aprsellant was ^viyring. a horee and tu^fy "be-
longing to the latter, enet on Broadway, intending to turn
iMMTth on ksdn »treet. It wae cenclueively i^.own that Roy
wat driving eaet on the north side of tne street. Appellee,
who wae walking on Ute ri^ht side of his coapnnion, looked
up Broadway eastward for approaching vehicle e, and ae he
reaehed a point some lo or IP, feet froa the sidewalk, ^ni
just at he tuzned hie head to the west, be was knocked to
%vt|ft «>m'y<BHn^M«. >iy <9«kn ttH Ant * B vahiole, botli whesle nBJ'-aeil
over him, «md he received the injuriep for which te brou&ht
ii%m mBvi.i
jS
fult. iiits eampanion, vho wa* v««t of appellee, from vhieh
direction the vehlola vais cowing;, vair tit* »«in« jutt in time
to 08cap« injurj', but vfs e>o nviAX th« VAhicle that tb«
vh««l8 barely si»?«d him* ile called to appellee "but the
warning oaae too late to ff«ve the latter from injury, knt
only wa» appellaa^ horee and VAi^^^y on the ifrron<j <?lde of
the street, th»t ie the nojrth fide goin^ vt.^X i>ut it va*
alffo proven by appellee's witneeee? that the hor^e vae
being driven nt a lively gait, one witneipe tttating ©t the
rate of eigiit a^ilee per hour, lAiile no evidence wne of-
fared by «.pp«ll*'*^ «^» *o *i-^ rote of ippeed f.\ ^i^ich tiie
horce wns eoing.
There wnj? no material cmflict in the evidence 'i»
to the circuaetnocee surrounding appellee's injury. The
queptlonr of ne£;li«^ence on the rmrt of appellant's servant
and tne e^ceroiae of due oare on the r^^^t of appellee, were
queetions of fnct ior the jury Jimd the proofs plainly
sliOvred a rii^ht of recovery in apisellee. 'he jvidtment of
the court below vill t>ierefor« be affirraed.
Affirmed.
> ' i -; <; or ted in full.
.3-
X%9W&0
/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copv of the OPINION of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mg office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set mg hmd and affixed the seal of saidEouT
at Mt. Vernon, this ...^ /^S^:^^L dag 62^_^<^^^<^
A. D. 191 A
Y..::i
the Appellate Court
o
^ y
A
)
Opinion of the Jlppellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, the same
being the 26th dag of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.
Present:
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Presiding Justice,
^^''non. Harrg Higbee, Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk. THOMASjE. PASLEY, Sheriff.
And afterwards, to-wit: On the fifth dag of April, /jjf D. 1918, there was filed in
the office of the Clerk of said Court, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION in the words and figures
following: ,
James. Smith, 'u
Agip:f^ll.ee.
\
\
No 73
October Term, 1917.
211 I.A. 53
APPEAL FROxM
Circuit COURT
Saline County C pa
Appellant
.Saline COUNTY
TRIAL JUDGE
HON ^"..J.'.J^y}.^
T«xn Ko. 75. Agenda Ho. 44
Octoljer Term, 1917,
Jaaite Smith, )
)
Appelle* )
)
V, ) Appeal from r>allne.
Saline County Coal Company,
)
Appell«mt )
Opinion by }.i{s.befe, J.
- — oCo-—
Xl-iie ie pn notion to recover damatce for personal
injuries sustained \>y appellee on Jxme 22, 191C, «^ile em>
ployed liy appellant in one of its mines. Cn the trial ^before
the court and a jury, a judgment for §i40riO wns i-endered in
favor of appellee.
The declaration coneieted of foi/r counts'. The first
count allegeie in substance tJ-mt tracks vere laid in the rooms