\ Appellaat.
APPEAL FROM
KTRICie^ COURT
or CHIOAOO.
211 I.A. 298
. iMWilZ^ Uh.'i^M.'iM W^ViliiS^m 7HJS OPiNICm 07 THj£ COURT.
This ie an appeal bj the defendant below from a
Judgment altered by the Siunicipal Court of Chi cage ia faror
•f Jaaee V. Bishop, as e.dmlnlstrator of the estate of John
Karas, deceased.
The eTldence showed th.- 1 plaint! f' a intestate,
John Karas, on October 32nd, 191?^, while employed by
appellant, beoaMe a member of thn defendant's Si^loyes*
Benefit Association. Plaintiff sued to reeerer death
benefits clttimed to be due under the eertificate of member-
ship.
The application of deceased previaed, that unlets
otherwise deiiignated, theae benefits should be payable to
hi& wife if living; if not, then to his children, "or. If
there be no children nor children's children liring, thto
to , if living, and if not living to w$
father and mother jointly, or the surviTor; or, if neither
'be living, then to siy next of kin, payment in behalf of sueh
next of kin to be snde to ny legal representative, * • « •■»
At the tine plaintiff's intestate died on the 28th
day of June, 1915, he was \iniBaz*ried and left no children nor
deeeendsnts of ohildren surviving him, but did leave him
fi*^
- m
6
r ■? ■•■.•. .■;■•:-• ^..,: ;: ,, ^ > \-. ' 'f; ■ffJl
itr«»li> i*vor fwff
ili^bS viU «o belt BSn^B^Stti ti 'X4| oaJiJ «ifJ M
rt«a lu^iliio on J'1«X ban h^iiiamms ««» •!( ,aiex «omi>l le \«1>
•urvirlng, Jacob Karat and Mary Karaa, hia fathar and aiothar
reapectlvely,
thlla no aridanofl appanrc in the raoord upon tlia
aulsjectp it saem.s to hayo Idaen conceded that the fathar and
Bother of the deoe^sed were reaiding In Huropc, tomewhara in
Oalicla, within the territory in whieh the great war haa bean
waged and that they had not been heard from ainoe the beginning
of the war. Their daughter, a sister of the deeeaaad, doea
not know whether they are living or dead.
Appellant upon the trial insisted th&t the adaiinie*
trater had no right to Bue on the policy and haa by proper
objections end caotione preoorTcd the question in the record,
The plain language of the instrujaent sued on indicates that
the poscontradicted, It would la
our opinion not be sufficient to establish a conetructlTS
sTlotion, nor glTs appellee the right tn cimcel the Icass.
Barrett â–¼. Brodie . 158 111. 479; Riauer v. O' Coanell . 173
111. App. 64; ftelffif i r ly iT egticani, ^o . v. Bltunenf ield . lift Mo.
App. 308.
The ciccrte vm erroneous and it, sill therefore be
reversed and the cause raaanded.
M9BWO ^/fi ^'^ cU'iir Jbi»ii^^o9 tea «sut- ...^^- -.., 1^1 ,x«B.
C r ff .t f fiR .*'*«£"{-.')VR'?
t09 • 27>66*
\
JDWARD A. CIVILINc?!, a rrinor,
tj Julls, CiTlllnckl, hi6 ne-At
friend, \
T9 .
APFXAL TRtM
rJHICrS-iiL COUHT
GP CHICaOO.
i^ll i:a. 303
S. MASOK 2Q£i.:K,
HR. JUtiTICL HATGHJSrT DiSLIVEHi'd) TRa CSPIMIOK CF/TRa Ua'RT.
Plaintiff, a minor, nued by his next friend, and
in hia statement of claim alleged tht^t he lived with hit
pcrente who were tenants of defendant in an apartment
appurtenant to which van a frcmt '^stcop* extending froa:
the eidevalk iis front of the prutisee to the first fleor
thereof; that on each side of as.id stfelrvay or "fitoop*
w&B a handrail; that the stairway wae used as an e: ti'anoe
and exit way hy the different tenants who lived in the
huilding; that the defendant h&d control of the stairway
and handrail, and that it waa his duty to keep thera reaeon*
ably safe which he did not do, by nesna whereof the plain-
tiff while in the exeroise of due oare was injured etc.
The affidavit of merits denied the nrentises w^re
out of repair; alleged that the accident wqb <iue to plHin*
tiff's fault; that the railing was wantonly and raalioiously
loosonod by someone to the defendant unknown of which
plaintiff had notice, but of which defendant had ro kj-iowledge;
that the prraaises had heon put in good repair a short time
before the accident and that it ^bs the duty of the tenants
to notify the defendant of any wart of repeir, but that
plaintiff did not do so.
x-a<?«iA
.saXXaoc-.
,:,usi'ii
*r'
,.:..- h:X ^OQAli .i
. •>?
/t-^itftJtsX'A
X^w^ifl^s ortJ "to Xeivfn^o ♦•a/If tarrfenf*"*:?^?, ;?in/.l>Ijt«cr
•s-
Tbe case was submitted to a jury upon instruotioat
to which defendart, c^pC'lltnt horf, ntithtr asde objection
nor took exception, smi there for*, cannot te c.-^wiplained of,
8o»tt T« Chicago Binder & ?ile £o,., 1?C 111. App. 391.
l"b« iarnas an to d^foadant'a aftgligencs, plaintiff' •
contributory nesligonoe, notictj and the axtount of plalntiff*8
da^aj^e^ (on alX of which paiiita tho evidence waa i^onfli<?ting)
were aubmitted to the jury under these InBtruetions and ths
Terdict a^fcinat d'c^ffenclfint vus^ approved by trie trial court.
Vc s«>o no vent&on tviiy the judgsienl uhould be disturbtd en any
of t-he^^iO grounde.
Appellant further coaq>lain8 of a variance in that
the statera6ii.t cI cluim alleged tho north handrail to be
defective, ^hiie the proof eheuoa it vrae the couth handrail.
At the tine Lii* evidence was offered, the defendant did not
object, nor did he prior to tho aubsiiueion oi the case to
the jury, â– eJEe uiii' aotion to exclude it. This was necussary
in order to preaerve this question for review. Carney v.
Marquette CotU Mining Co.. 2<iC 111. a2&.
Appellant ulso complains th. t the ccfurt received
iiicoaipetent te&tisiony in permitting aj; expert of the plain-
tiff to testify without showing proper qualifications. Ho
objections to the specific questions when «&ked, nor motion
to strike the evidence complained of appears in the record
and for that reason the point is not reviewable here.
i^pellant argues that the evidence failed to show
that the stairway of which the handrail was a part was under
the control of the defendant landlord at the time of the
injury. i»laintiff*8 statement of claim alleged that it was,
and defendant's affidavit of «erits did not deny that such
was the fact. There wub uncontradicted evidenco fro« whicasi
-s«
. 1:e fcefllal!?*"' •> ■■■^ • - x'-c-A jr,',r . .. ....
. â– :fnao3 t&jti.f ^- ....
.Xx,«Xfcai5^ ri^SO« f.'':.- •^. V ^i ^,»«Jri^ rf'.-i v.. -fr- . .-orj ■.•.■^■■si<
J o n bifc .^ fl»bns 1 . f' ^'ft' "r
VT.iJ?S:!S»®i5i aire ,.^.., ...^ ebujt©^. .. .,j-..-... ...,:_. ,.„.
beTitfO*! jit'^j . -.7i-«AfjKoa o«X;-, ;««ix»c''' '>
oH •ttiiAi:d;i»dl^iijB£^j^ td^oi^ 3su«)9iitit iuo-y^''^ vU.-f -
noii^d« T«R ,0djtate stoiHr naiaxtu^nji oill»«<.,^ , ^„-..
Moos J ".ii* :'.l !9X8*5fqj» ".<> r^-^rfiait^ao wambivs «^fU <5il*7f« «»
X9katJ ejsw iTusqf « «^ir IJmtlnHti »rf* rLai.tr 1,-^ '^"^ .t: .._ ,.,_.
Ml^ to »«ti* »ff^ :f^ '^^wfbcaX Jaabml^t ... ... .junoo »tii
Ham ii^A3: x*»i^ -1^0*^ cfltiiBi to ^v f,ni» •*^juib/»l0i» .but
Uie JlUry could re«sonal>ly find thin to be so.
Xtie Judgment whioh is for ^560.00 it net •xe«*siT«
•ad it vill b« aff.ii>)B0d.
AFFZRliKO.
•5-
•riaa«9x» tea ai oo.Od^ loit ai al»iiiv ini»iifs.bi;t »iiJ^'
-i/i
3^'/
516 - 25-561
Piled May 14, 1918
Appelleo, )
) APPlilAL Fl^OJi
)
vs. ) lOL'IilCIPAL COURS
Appellant .
)
) CI? CJliCAGO.
kH 1X304
la. ju.,.2iaa HATCiLi^cT iiiiivEJiKD thij cpiKKi: 0? i-iii: ccuriT.
Cn the notion of appellee the- stenccr.-i.ph.ic rcpo'rt
of the evidence taken :;n the trial court has herctororo "been
otrici:en end e. Liotion of :.ppc-ilar.t to tet aoide the caid
ordfcr h;..:i been rcaervod to the hco-ring.
Tho jud^-^rnent frc.^ vvhicli the appG^.l v;ai: taken \~i.:.n
entered in the J.^miicipal Court of Chicarro oti June 7th, 1917,
and ths tricil jud^e then entered, ron order extending the tiniG
in v.hich a btenc^raphic r(;port or bill of exceptic.iG isi.^-ht ce
presented to ninety dayo fror.'; th;'.t daite. This tirr.e expired
Cepte::;bor 7th, 1917.
'ihe stcnoc;raphic report v;:id not filed v;ith tho
clerk until ''optcL^bor .21c t, 1917, end it '::a,z cif;ncd â– y the
ti'ial jud(.:;e on tho iij.'Xi:; dute nyno ^ pro t unc as ex Lcnterr.bcr
7th, 1017. 'Xhero appears upon it this endorcicr.c-nt:
"I hereby ccirtify that the forcroin;; docu!T.c-nt
in the absence from Chicr..?:o of Judge -.'ells, v-'as
presented to nc in open court to bo fji^nc:.: this 7th
dt-.y of ^opterrvber, lOl?.
liarry C!li:on,
Judge of tho I'.unici-oal Court
of Chic V so,"
It ie argued by appellant tVif.t the cndcrsernent
of Judso Olaon on ^opte.-bcr 7th furnioheis a nufficient
bcaiG for tho entry of the n jp^ fi r>ro trine order of the
trial judge, Judge ^ells, on Septc:'';ber 25th. iVa do net
think 00 in tho abscncv^ of cn aff ir:,K..tiv2 chOTrin.'; c^-. due
diliccnce on the part of aprjCiHant "oy the ccrtiricato of
th.'i; trial jucicc. I'iiiSTlho rule lr,ld do-vn in PocdIo v.
Roscn^:-:^ld . 2od 211. :;-13, and ^ollc-.:inc, lli.-t rulo v/e tract
no-.v deny the notion to net a-^i.io the crdor GtriJcins this
stcncf:raT>hio rnport or bill of excepticno.
A3 the comr.on Irvv? rcc'nrd n.ppcorc to bn -vithrut
error, the jud-caent cf the trirl court inuct "bo r/iTinned.
AI?FIU!.iD:I),
{
'I'lxird t^nd iiulstea Ourage, i
i
iiPptXlunt ) / Appttil iron
liunioipa.! Court
'i
OfilOAGO CITY MJLLmj COiiPi.MSC ) of Ohioago
a corporation, ; / i
J
Appellate J
â– ^ ^llI.A. oiu
MB. I'ilBSlDIXiC JUSTICS iTAlXOH d«liTttred t.^e opinion ot th«
oourt.
Appellant l>ron^ht suit lor dtuoages owing to
injury to on» 01 itu ^utomobilas alleged to h&Te been
outtsed by tlxa negxigeuce oi the appellee in the operation
of li. otreet oar. The oaoe wtis tried without a jury and
at tke olose oi lue evi donee judgment was entered in l&Tur
oi the appellee ftg^tinet the uppellant, tor oouta.
On Sunday, ^^pril 4, lifXb, at <:..bout b:2>0 a.iu.
one MoBB hired a taxioab (a dteTena-i^urye^ o&rj ol u.ppell-
ant to taJte his mother to u certain ruilroud station. 2ha
•ar was driren by one Uumilton, an amployee of the ^.ppell-
ant. It was ts, r&iny day and the istroeta were wet. The
automobile proceeded nor.thou the eaat aide of v/ib^ah avenaa
going towt-rda ^bXh atroet. Aa it net^rod £oth street, &
street o^^r belonging to the appellee oumo ircm the aaat
going west on tho letter etreet. She automobile &nd the
street oar collided ne&r or jutit west of the oanter of the
interseotion of the two ctreeta. Aa a reault of the con-
ouaaion, the street car left the trao&a und o&nie to u atop
a littxe west ol the west curb, being more on i^otn street
than on Viabaah ^^ venue. The ^^.ulomobile caii>e to i- atop
lb
\ i ' ''
I 8. A.I 1 1 i:
•XC^qqiL
.iiaoo
•I- ^fitKO *%^A8utb loX tJun tA^^rt ^itsXlt^qqA
aifii Brad oi AajaXXis ••litfe«K>^x7<a sJl to sau oj ^aat^X
^a.i 'i:ar(, ^ ^oo/l^iw b9lit auw •eao MiT .xilo ^•9iS9 a to
• s^uoo luX ,^aisIX«qq<u Sil^ ^aAJU^A toXlaqq^s axil to
•«•« d£:8 ^jrod^s 3 a ,dX^X ,^ ill;!: ,\«fra0e aO
-XXaqqii lo lx«e «otiua-«aeTo^£ «) daolxfij ^ Ao^Xd a«oM oao
tilS .aol^:o^Q AdOxXX.^:i qXa^ioo a oi 'xoxiloai sXii ojui^ ot ta*
-XXoqqii oild^ lo •o'lioXqiit oa ^aoiXiBMU eao ^tf aoTlih s^w iJio
•il!I; .^09 •'xow »^ft»T^s OilJ Aait ^«Jb xa^^i^ ^ o^v ^•(- •'^a
eatsfv.^ xla^d .iV i« oAXo is.'io ^dt aadi-ioa i>oJ[>oeooiq tXXcfoxsoJtfd
« ,^ooT^e di^i, b9Xd9H tt mA ,i90'xft di^a mbtismoi boIo^
injf txU iBoH Muio ooXXoqqjt OilJ oJ ^x^oXo«l a<»o looni^o
•ill hoM •Xltfoaol'ffA oxd .^oaT^a la^^oX mdt ao ^aaw yxXof
tiU lo aa^aoo ojI^ lo t^aaw itai^ lo xoaa J>oi>iJ.Xoo ««e l«0T#a
-aoo aiit lo ^Xirao-x a •▲ .a^aai^a ovtf- ad[f lu aoi^oaaTo^ixi
qojTa a o# aauio htu ajiOii'X^r axi^ ^iaX imj t—tin axiJ .aolaauo
^aao^a di^H ao oToa j^iatf .dxuo ^ua« ail« lo #aaw al^JiX a
qoila ju 0^ oiiutu aXXc(g«iOi«a adT ,aira«ra rii^rf^ff ao OMdi
mhii agulnat or ne&r th« ourb ut tix« southwest oomsr of
&6Xh strest aud ^Abush htshus. It was tiiAOSt eoiapxsts-
ly dantroyod und was •Yiasutljr wf little T&lus after tJbie
sollislon. rrior to the injury it W!:.8 worth Iron |100U.OO
to i;1100.U0, but u:£terwurd8 not more thuja ^ /70*uO. '^here
was no dAOAge to the street ear e:xcept the bre^j^ing of
some gLufis. There is aorae oonfliot is to the speed at
which the automobile uid the street oar were going about
the tl£ie o£ and Just prior to the ooliislon. The wit-
ness Anna koss said that the speed oi the automobile just
belore reaching ii6th street was from six to eight miles an
hour and that the street ear was running very fast. The
witness JPor* i&oss said that the automobile sloweu down and
was going about eight miles an hour and that the street
oar was trc^reling Tery i<.tst. The witness Iiimz testiXied
that the automobile was going about six to seven miles an
hour and that the street oar w<a.s traveling about twenty
alios an hour. fhe witness l>r. kolaughlln testified that
tho automobile was going fairly fast, about ten miles an
hour; that the atreet oar» between i.lchlg&u avenue and
WabaiUai avenue, was running about eight miles an hour; that
it slowed up at the east side of 'Wabash avenue. The wit-
ness Jiraloo tostifieuL that the automobile was going over ton
miles an iiour. I'he motorman testified th^^t he stopped tho
street oar en the east side of Wabash avenue. (The oonduotor
In charge of the street qvx testified that the automobllo wao
going twenty-live or thirty miles an hour; th^^-t tne street
oar stopped on the east side of vabash avenue and then travel -
o4 at about five miles ta-n hour.
"iivt -in:.. .a«ittili.»4> 9di oS Tdl^q iEir{, ba-m lo eui^ edit
i^ttat 3iJtu ..rio.trrs (uiJ' Id i^»i({ti sii^ /4xii\M«i« tt6«S ^timiA se«a
•d^ > . ajsii: a-ut! r^o f^^itu oxi<r ^iu£l Atu* 'und
Mom scitui. v'» .w ^03u» 94$ |f4l.4^L«(|k,«.iioM ««U. aaMt^riv
jetM:<2^a 94«t «i«>MiMr i^^*. YutMi gm «»XXiB 0A%i9 ia^^i^ B<7i0S a^v
%ia9\v4 taini4& ^ijLdv j 4»9Xi9 §44 fJidi lba*i %Mvd
tasi< io^ nJ:Xjl^0*^u.t#^ .4.<^ anQaii'^ mil ,xssoti
oiM «f4»«;AUi ijat jjod^ f^ii-*^'^ \L-^Xta!^ }^ ■' aUL4b
itfifd' MM: M^im Ji1^o.e ts^ctti ^aluojifx S4V ^^Aruavo ix^^^jf*
-iia 9sSZ .Miai^T. ,?^ mii liS <pr i^ow.
9di U9^.ii(iiv. 94 tfygi k9ltli9i9i aiim'i94wa 941 .a^g.^ a& MXXcr
fiJMP «x^«(Via^i;A.«Al jT^ao" i>«if^4«>«o x.>a tp9%49 9d3 *ia ui.
Idr^zs a9a4 aa*^ imimsvxv ae^ta^^v 3:w 9bl9 »«d« ei<M naJIft •
mhore is aleo a oonfllet iu lue evideno* »•
to the preoiB* olronjBiatano«a ^t tha tla« of the ooiilaion.
She witne«8 Anna iioes to^'itllied th^^t the Btreet var struciL
the fttttofflolQlle on the right tjide buoi: oi ^.hc first wheel
And thut the automohlle was thrown Into lu.0 gutter aik laa
left hand, 2>.nd thtit the street our whb thrown off the trac^.
3!he vitneea jJt. i^oaa teetilled thut the driver oi the uuto-
muhlle applied t£i.e bralLea but as the road was slippery, the
automobile sij^idded and the drlrer undertoo.^ to turn It west;
tht.t the street c»r etruoi;^ the <-utOi&oblle near tue bask
wheel on the right h^ind olde ^nd thut the uutomoblle was
thrown iigalnet the ourb on the southwest ooruer of the street;
thz t at the time of the eoxxislon the driver wus trying to
turn west to avoid a oolllslon and get out of the way of ths
ear; that the street ear was tar own off the traok.
The witness i^lms toBtlfled that the street
oar struoiL the automobile In the middle un the right side and
the automobile wtiS thrown up on the ourb ^t the eoathwest oor-
ner and th.t the street ear was sent off the traoi. on the
other side near to the ourb. jjt, Molaughlln testified that
the automobile was traveling north a little left of the
center on Wabash t^venue; that it Btruoi: the street oar near
the end of the forw«<.rd wheels; that the street oar went Into
the gutter on Wab&sh; that the automobile stopped a little
west of the west ourb stone In Wabasli. avw:ue; that the
oolllslon was '^soft"; that there was no jar.
The witness Braloo testified th.t the automo-
bile struoic the oar ubout five feet from the front; lh&.t the
eolxlsion occurred about fifty feet west of the center of the
Intersection of the streets; that first the right front whesl
of the automobile struct the oar ojad then the other wheel
came in oontaot and the street oar started to go off tiis traeJc;
Xtf./
9a'J
Xo»iiv.' iaoti *d3.tt •it^ •Ta-xii ... L"-o^STp^t,il
thbt it struc'v wu«d jireot oar about live i«et iroa tha
txoni 0nd; Vlni^i ths toro« ol the automobilo pushed the
OCX of I tho tri^Ciis.
Iha laotorizUi-a t.e£;ll£l«o. wh^^i »i.o ^rwnt tad
oi tuo etrottt our did iiut Btriii.« the iront wheel o± the
autoiaubllo. 'Ihe uotiduotor oX the street o<ir lectiliod
that the i.utoaohil6 ran Into the front end oi Iho ct.x and
iUQooiced the street car oil the truci.8.
It lu the oonteutlon ot the appellant that
the Judguent ui ta(i» trial oourt should be royereed ae oon-
trurjT to the vvelgat ol the oTldence. iJTldently the trial
judge iound in Xtvor o:t; tho u] pellee on tho ground that the
appelltf^nt hud not proyon hie ot^use oX ^.otlon by a prefonder->
anee i>£ the eyidenoe* It is the eontoution ol the uppoilee
that "the physicux situation together with the testimony of
defendant's witnesses dst^blishos th*:^t defendant Wi.B not
negligent in operating the oar c^t the tlcie in q.ue3tion*" Of
oouree, the finding of the trial oourt without a. jury, where
the eyldenoe is conflioting, will not be disturbed unloas
agulnet the w^^nlfest weight of the eyldenoe; uud, in oonaid-
ering the T.elgnt oi tne eyidenco, tiile oourt neces&urily,
under the luw, wil.^ oonuider the auperior opportunity of the
triul oourt In that it seea and hc&rs the 'vritneesea. 3b.lbey
y* fluyee . <i67 ill. b*ili ;Jelson y. iMiL&omi , iiOc 111. ^^pp. tbX;
ixosenblath y. xi«lntg r'o^jd Oo. , Hi. ifp. iiio.
She eyldenoe of tmree witnessee, Dr. l.icl.i..ughlin,
the raotornum )aid the oonduotor, thut the utrcot car either
slowed up or stepped ...t the eaet Bide ol ..c-b^ufih t.yei>ue, to-
gether with the eyldenoe thut tho street was wet and slippery,
and thjit the oolllalon too^s. ^i-ce near tho oenter, or weat of
the oenter, of the Interseotion of tho two etreeta; and tJie
eyldenoe of jjr. iiioaa that the driyer of the tutoiaobile j-pplied
•■'-■■- ■■' - '•* - • - :■* : ■'-■;bn© ')aoat
) VJLl- J J
»-. ' .-. i .,> K
^0i
ia
-&« ViL •l' >*«
^OiVdtSII
! y ju juw â–
W VI JJ «F 'J i ,
i6 V-
^XiiSi
; » ^'^ i W
III
- - X^
X»L-..
.(H'tiVOa
:_.â– _y V v.- -h fc* *
> >' << .
qfi iieweJla
th« brUcdS, but, as the road was slippery, Uie b.utomobil«
aiLlddod i.nd the drlTor undertou^ to turn It w«8t; i^nd tlui
•Tidence th^t th.9 impaot threw the street our off tlie traojca
to the Dorthweet, ^^11 laj^en lu oon junction with the oTldenoe
of the upxelXee's witncaaea, wnioh the trl^x judge may hare
been Ju>?tifled xu Leileylug, that the street o&r was trayel-
ing bt & reuaoa<:^bXe rate s>t upeed, j^iTes rise to the oou-
oXuuion, in our opinion, thi^t the apj^ellant failed to m&jLe
out his otiUBe oi action by u preponder-nee oi the evidenoe*
It wbB elainiOd by appellant thut the trial
judge erred In admitting in oTldence u ouuversation whioh
w^s teBtiXied to &e ht^ring taken pliice between j^r. i^oLuughlin,
& p^issencor on the street ear, uxid tho driver of the t..utoEio-
bile, iiamediately 'iter the ttcoident. Dr. LcLaughlin to8ti>
iiec^ &a ioxlowB: "I V7ent or&r and epoJce to hiia (rei orring
to tne driver oX tiic wutoiaobilai c-nd aaid, 'What v/ore you
trying to do with ue, put U8 out uf busineBSV' Ho at^-i^,
looxiug at the oar, &ud the g&a 6nd vrcter was running all
OTer the street, i^nd he st-ya, 'i guoaa tno bra^ie didn't wor^'*"
!!!he reoord shows thut oouAiiel lor appellant objected, but,
when the trial judge suid it w^^e ooiupetent, uc^uie^ced and,
himaalf, stated, "it is p^rt oi the res ^-oetue i.robably,"
Ws eaunot oonaider, thoreiore, th<.t uay legal objection waa
made tu the adiaisaibility oi bhe evidence*
je'indin^ no error in the reoord the juigCient
is aiiirmed.
^a.4 i'iAt 99a»bXr9
9VMeL xim •atiVL .aoesaa^xw 8'9«j.X».;q^ oat zo
itoldw ao/a^^:: jiivcxro ax gax.
.al.
-its* J" ttlitf;iii,«ui^
XX. J sotiooir'X u^ •&.
;.iLiu9,i 0ij«
oXXtf
•XOTiXi'
, ~j£UJkOOX
298 • 23643
VGRIiAI CARROLL,
Appelle*,
YS.
A. OCLDSTBIK,
Appftllant
.1
APPICAL 7B0H
aOOTTY GOUHT,
COOK COOTTY.
iill I.A. 315
HR. PR^^SIDIHQ JUSTICF TAYLOR delirered the
opinion of the court.
This is a suit t}rought \>y the appellee against
the appellant for damages for a breaoh of a contract to
pvupohase certain real eotate. Appellee having reooyered
a yerdiot and Judgment in the sua of $437* 50, this appeal
was taken therefrom.
The theory of the appellee is that appellant
promised to h\ay a certain ten lots - upon which appellee's
eoamission would be $437.50 • providing the appellee voiad
bring about a sale of certain property which appellant
then owned; that appellee carried out his part of the bar-
gain so that appellant's property was sold; that appellant
then refused and failed to carry out his promise to buy
the aforesaid ten lots, and, therefore, became liable.
On the other hand it is the claim of the appellant that
no binding contract was made; that there was no definite
agreement as to the purchase price of the lots or as to
their number and that th'^rt^ was no legally binding promise
on the part of the appellee.
Appellee, a real estate salesman for W. H. Briti*
8MeS . 89R
( .JJOHflAO TlAMHOft
..:v
(
..â– -i ::â– naxrrlqo
Uumqfi Bidi tOtxi^VRH "5^0 aura ^r.-^i^r 'nibiav a
ixt/iXI^qtfB ifiil^ ajt «©iX«q<Ifi ori- to X'*o«il^ «iifT
• *«9Xi?qqis Aolriv aoqu - a*oI nrsj ni/sJ-too » \wcF o;f bBsiciotq
bluom i*XI»qqfi '^rij aniLlv< . - .d.V^^^ »tf l)Xi/ow ftoiaeixaaroo
inali&qcia lioiriw xlrt»qoiq nlai^iso to r»X»a « iuo^s, ajniictf
,it3i<fmt£ IbxMOfi^ ,»io1t9rE«)jl^ , ,a^oX ««* bJtJBBfttola axii
tmlt iaaXXftqqja sxi;^ 1o jni«Xo 9Ai aX ijt ton/uf T9c(;ro' oifl nO
•tlafimb Ofi ttAw sieifi^ isuii ;»jb«n kjsv <)^8«rrt^noa ;^Xi)nX(f on
tH a» to aioC eat "io ooiio seftriorjirq wii* ©* a« Jtf9isi»«79a
•BJtmo'xq snil>nlcf ^XXjijiaX o« axi?.' ?4i:^r(t iiirfd bjnst ii^dmun ilsttii
,ii9llf*qtiM tuit Itt itjui 9sii no
*-l;tX'zS ,r rxaaj«»XAa •^ii;r«e Xaaa « ,«9XX*qqA
-2-
gan and Co., having a contract with the latter company
that he should receive a ooamiseion of seven per cent
on the sale prioe of any lots in Uarquette ilanor Addl*
tion vhioh he might sell, undertoolc, in the simmer of
1915, to persuade the appellant to purchase certain
lots in that Addition, The evidence of the appellee
is to the effect that he got appellant interested in
the property and told hira that Ihe lots 29 to 37 in
Blook 2 of Marquette lianor Addition could be bought for
#62S.C0 a lot, ten per cent cash and monthly payments
of 4I10.00 a month; that he had a number of conversations
with appellant as to the property and in the early part
of August, 1915, they went out to see the lots; that he
"told him that he ought to take ten or fifteen of those
lots; that they were worth the money and it was growing
up very fast out therr' and it was a good plaee for him
to build"; that appellant said he thought bo too; "that
he would take those lots and perhaps more of them"; that
he, appellee, tried to get him to make a deposit and sign
a contract; that appellee finally said "he didn*t think
he had quite enough money to take all those ten lots at
•noe"; that after being further urged, appellee said,
•I have got a piece of property on Weetem avenue, if
you will help me to sell that, I will take those lots";
that appellee then responded, "I said I would look into
it, and try to do it"; that at that time, at the office,
they had a plat of the Addition and that the lots referred
to in their conversation were the lots numbered 29 to 37
in Blook 2, Marquette Manor Addition; that subsequently