the Rt, Helen's Company and Paeifio Power & Railway ::ompany
to proceed wiLth their projeot, the National Ck>vernment
eaneeled all the rights of the two concerns; denied any
eoBspiraoy, or that there was any demand for an accounting,
or that oemplainant is entitled to any relief.
- "' ' '" :3*r»cf«>n nr^j ^to ci«i«i»»x» Btfw *i <a«9Xmr tea
.n-x^cfasa ni»;f lo /lojio irr'*-'^ " '\B| i* »bni;t »ril ai 000, Od|
tKf oi^ ion tjRW ioaii/i' mofe actw siti^i iiictts' ta&i bam
•rfi oi fit^vijs »*t»w ^■•jri^ji •. -'ii-* lo Bjiiqo© sadi ;9TJtio»l:l*
OMOosd* oi 6«#ioliag $199 aao«^»q '^[/eiAn; liui^ iatocTneff mji
X9^j^ ia<ii 6siaaJl> »ifXAl>nel9(I .aa^ooi/a iuorii^iv atacrjKan
,i'n»'strtoo (»i(J %*j<MkU ft»#Bi/T' - < * '♦'^- -•^- 1^^ i>aliaoq9i>
jfoo^a aJLd tn»« inani «X«^w -• ....... .■^w.. ,-.. >uv ,ftai%n(»x(i.o to
i:tul3 \mlxi oi ht^vtiui^i ifiiaL a/nt/ daltlv ^BmtPtsrti ttdi ol
}n«>r«"=-'-' "rti" oJ a-xacrifOft mi •luotta 0i ^tttlial 9sii oi snlwo
Oi. ,^^ ^^dbnu b^Hmoti^b saw jlooj^n or bun bnaobna^M saw 11
%aM asw ?- â– ' flf-r.s .;^;.,o biAq :to J^svlf-ofii Bkaul
Ixtovaa »jfl >(tf oi>Ma otdw sinom^^ doiia XIji S»di boti^rB iu4
iMii 8t»r« ;at«*rf* as^^i^atf ^^n-wnoataa lAlet '^* ivoAitm ••Ittsnn
iadi \9i9H9m •IdX^ani \nti bed fOY«»rt xict'Q^BmO e'naXaH ,iQ a/W
fic^^isi^a «x{i ao nQianitiatav nX airt^al'x 'x»;r«w omoa Joamlala ii.
;â– tKHnlnlqmno moil ^x>oie oiaoa boaatfo'wq Hiaabtfltib ftoXxlw lo
bmiiaO mdi lo itaq a Aibaai aMflvnallA »'xi»w alKsJti axtt larfi
lo aijaXijal lo sbssoova no ;tAii Dca lOriaaaii iaaiC? aaiA^B
^QUiqfiior v^trXXAA »!, -xswol oilXax^H tiaa Xn«%AoO a'noXoH ,iii •At
lixstMntovoo X««ol*»i5 arii ,;toato'%q iladl lijj^ Drtoooiq •^
yjtUF b9 kaitb ;aiicn:»onoo avt 9di to n^iisXt odj' XX« AaXeotuio
f^^littuoti: a tiM ^01 J»fia&i»t> ^« a«w dNifl liufl 10 «xo«'xXqaao&
.laXXft-^ v'YM oi baXllirta «1 in«nlfl/' -^^'^r .♦*i{i 10
Th<* ORUse was rt^ferred to a Toaster in ohanoary
who took proof* and sMda a report. H« found that the con*
traot was in foroe and eff«ot from the data it waa executed;
that the partitas had hoped to eeeure new meabert, but were
un@aoc8BRful; that a year afterwards, March 26, 1909, the
parties abandoned the oontraot and entered into another
•f aiailar import, with a few objectionable features
omitted; that the seoond oontraot neyer went into effect;
but that there should be an accounting between the parti «?8
for advances by them subsequent to the date of the contract,
JIaroh 25, 1908. The master stated the account between
Trego, Iterel, Honeywell and ooraplainant, Jones being omitted.
The account as stated showed the amounts paid subsequent
ts the date of the contract as follows: Trego, $2, 258. 71;
Barel, #2, 715.52; Honeywell, 13,054.87, and Baall , $1,515.
The master found that the total of these payments should
be dirided between the four, and that Beall should pay
$1,021.02,— $579.50 to ISarel and $718.86 to 5loneywell.
To this report complainant filed ninety objections. They
were oTerruled and ordered to stand as exceptions. An in*
terloeutory decree was entered by the court sustaining some
of the exceptions and overruling others, and the aaster was
ordered to restate 4h« account in accordance with the de«
eree. Thereafter the master withdrew the accounting part
of his report only, and restated it in accordance with thit
decree. In this restatement complainant was given credit
for the amounts expended by him prior to the date of the
contract, as well as aftezTsards, but the defendants were
not given or<^dit for any sum paid prior to the contract,
but only that which was paid out subsequent to it. To
jb*iwott3c» ojgw ji P..fi£ CUM Moil #»«tl:« tfla «»iiol nl •a»H*{*^Ti*
•T9V ^irer .■t»dJi9A wsn 9VOdnt ojT iMiii«K( bmti H^ltx»q 9dt ijnii
;#c»'i'i» -'- '■■' - ■' - 7©w ;^o«rt^no9 ibaoAss »r{i isuiS ;J>»^#1ao
«^d«T^ao& -«u. ^ «^<si» Bfij ^i iKtUipmatimi nMt^ X^ mBosusrbn tot
#fldi;p»«tfx.'e bisci €;fau^ts» oAi b*nrmi9 JMil«itt .mm ;^atfO«»« »iiX
;iV.8dS.$i tOa^^iX imyiull^l mm idjn^iioo Aiii to »iA& 'siii eS
.^X&«X# ,IlA»e imii «ta.^Sa«£# «XX«irxein<^ ;S8,8XV,S$ ,Xi»'Xi«&
Xa« bJUitwfa XXso^ ^TAidi i>is« ai^o^ eM a99mi9ti b9btrlb 94
,ll9mv*tt<xi at {!6.fiXV$ item X«ta£ oi 03«(K'&$ -.-,J^.XS3,X$
XS'^T •Jinoitfoat'afo V^^nin ij«Xi1 i n«rsi aJuiftjoo **toqtnc «jtri;r oT
•iii fJA ,8noiv*<j?>ox» «» !*fu>#» at t'CSfMo bnfi l><»Xtm»ro hibib
dttos >iaXnis#fii£;« tis^oo 9ii.;f XKf b»^9ia9 a««r 9«io»f> vxo^'^<'<^'^'«>'
«4» ae^sfts wl^ toil ,«%«K^o 8aIXxrxii»ro btien aool^iieox» 9fj^ la
••^ 9tli il^iv •e«r«tnK»oo« ax #cwoooa uU a^A^««i at hfrr^Ma
^TAi anltiwotfojs ftdl waxfeiti^^iv 'xa#8«n Sili 'tmtta^iotL'i: .asTO
{ri*»i« ix»Tl^ «Mr iaamialsjfiVHi tn^tnimSnttrt BiHi at .txoub
gjiS la »$»t> 9Ai mt XQlt% m.isi Xji iradbnotixa a^mionji 9Ai ikA
vwm mifttMha»'i*h 9/14 iud ^9bi4sm%9i\M aa LLvm •« ,t9«n:^noe
,*0Au4fioa 9£(j o# 'xoi'&Q blAq iw xn« lol #Jkl>9%d. mrXft tact
oT .;fX o;^ ^na<;|><9atfffA •■" **'^" ««* ^^ rK«^ +-ro ^ f«r, tiirtf
thla suppleinental report defendants filed olijeotlons.
They were overruled and orcl<»red to stand as exoeptlons
which were likewiee overruled and a decree entered. The
â– aster la his supplementalreport stated: *I understand
the said order of the Court to direct the Master to make
the computation stated above and not consider the merits
•f the case,"
The decree is manifestly unjust and inequitable;
In fact, it is not sout^ht to be defended in this court on
either of these grounds. There can be no equitable reason
mhy complainant in the accounting should be aA»wed for the
aiBOunt he had expended prior to the execution of the oon*
traot and the defendants Trego> and Xarelnot be given
ar«dit for the amount expended by then prior to the eon«*
tract. In fact, it is not even suggested by counsel for
oomplainant, nor could it well be, that the decree is Just
•r equitable. It is sought to be justified apparently
•nly on the ground that no objection was filed by defend*
•Bts te the masters report that such credit was not given
them in the first account. As the master's first report
did not take into mcoount any money expended prior to the
contract* and as the result was in favor of the defendants
and against complainant* there was no need to file object*
ions, and it was only after the Blaster gave credit, as he
was directed, to complainant and did not give credit to
defendants for the amounts expended prior to the contract,
that they had an opportunity to file objections. It ap«
pears from the evidence that the Bt. Helen's Company was
Incorporated for $1,000,000, and the Pacific Power k
Railway Company for $2,000,000; that neith°<r of them had
any assets, except a tentative claim for some prospective
9tii <;'oftii ad* i>ii;od^ ytJL^iUsoosA mii ul i aaalMlq^sat yflw
i:a9qxs bsui aA iauossM
tairt *<^ »9%09b ui: ,»tf IX9w it i^It/os "xort «|a&axAX<i(tio«
ScXinvi^qgii bml^isatui .A^uoa nl 41 .»Xcffi4iL'p» -lo
•frnnlob X"^ b»lii\ Btnr noX^o^^d* Mi tjuii tnttox'^ •di no xXno
ewri^ 4«Mi 8JSW ilb»%o dou9 i^di ^noq*^ ats^^o^c; fnU 04 nJcA
tiq i;>aj»iit9qxs> v<>na0r \r» ;^m;of>o« oioX 9:^y. lb
msuMbtfXnh 9d4 to toy .am iiuu9t e»a4 «b ha» , ^oo
•49«t<'^e «iX11: at b9*ta on «•« 9-texl4 .^rsAnXttXqffoo 4«aijas« JtoJi
«i( a« «4ibnio 9y«s no^ttMB &f{4 !t94t^ ^Ia9 fl«^ 4i i>ni3 ,aLQ0X
04 4i&*"r© otI^ ion l>it ^irut 4nanjt4'iiq;Tioo u4 ,iJ94o9iii> tAW
,#««*iir ^bn^>qA0 o^iujoe. . o> u;^f3u»t>a9t9ft
•<|a ^X ,mttoijs>it'iuc ,^Xiiij'4K0<ur;p oa bed x**f^ i.eiii
A rcowoS[ elliott'i , ::OOaOOO,Xi( tt^'i iif»ta^oq,x9oal
bmA asifi lo loH^Xnr :>w>0,000«Si$ i»t ^ji<fiuoO x«wXiali
9Vi ^4 < 4(190X9 ,849na« \fim
•8.
wat«r power, which olalm was aftc^rwardt canceled by the
Hational OOTernment; that th" expenditure of money prior
to the contract was laade by the three parties on behalf
of the St. Helen's Company, and whateyer claim these
three parties had was against tho St. Helen's Company »
and neither had a claim for such expenditures against the
other; that moneys expended 8u))B0quent to the date of tho
contract was expended by the seyeral parties on behalf
of the two corporations, and that neither of the parties
wo\U.d have a claim against any other of the parties, unless
by Tirtue of the contract* "Rarel , Trego, Moneywoll, Jones
and Bturtorant, all t^'stified that prior to and at the timo
of the execution of thft first contract, it was expressly
understood and agreed that the contract should not become
effective and binding, until and unless ten persons were
secured who would Join in the contract. This is denied
by complainant, who testified that no such statement was made,
but that it was underetood by all of the parties that the eon-
tract would be effeotire as stated by its terms upon its
delivery. It ie oonceded by all partiec that the seoond
contract, which was signed by all parties to this litigation,
did not become effective, and was not to become effective
until at least ten members had executed it. The two con*
traots are almost identical, except that two provisions of
tho first contract with ref<^rencn to the oxohango of the
stock of tho twooompanies and the voting by the trustee
under his power of attorney for certain individuals were
eliminated from the second contract* The provisions in each
contract in reference to obtaining siembers are substantially
the same. There is other evidence in the record that tends
to support defendants' theory that the contract was not in*
9tU Xfi bifl»vntB9 abi»wx9i'ia naw mIaIo tintthr .ysyoq x^itsw
itoiiq t^nom 1o »'Xt/#lJbrT«qx« ^xi ;in»w«©yor LcrrQltgH
\l%tf9({ no aoliiBq 991 -'jsar: anv tOAiiooo 9rf^ Qi
«)iiJ^ ^anifi^aaftiifi^l^ifxp.' rot ikIaXo « bittf Ta^iX»n J»iu
'iXjiil»tf tio s»Xi*i.^(g ia%«i'Z9^ fid& v.tf I»«jbc9qx9 ajiw SttatSKOo
■mniitwi ntlS to i«friJ'Jflfr Sf%Tii btxa ,«{feiiA'zoq'xOO ow* f«i(i !•
■a»Iati ,«i>i^«r 'si}rr.ro '(/la ^nnljAsa mIaXs a oraif JiXir«v
•fflXt ©il# la bttJl 0* toit<;i ituit h9i\i. , -uvpiru'sr. ftffu
9i<»v •nes'xoq ari as^Xiiv J:»rus Xi^nu tj^I/iRitf brta •vlto»ll«
btiittf>b ni sicif .^OAtlneo ^a* nt ttiol bii;ow o/rfw b»-tx«>»»
«•&«■(um jtematxin (^j:>u9 on J-^i jbftlli;»esj- otiw^taAttkAltpgao xd
hnQtins ariJ i«rf.:f 9«liTCi<;q XIji ^rf i»»b9taoi3 , .viXsb
tnoXl/issxiil BJLii f)J a«Xi'T:(t«r xXis \;<f b^asie ttJiv iltiXftw ,:':.■a >.;>•« 00
9vX*o»lt9 s.atcio >:! oj /OH a«if »«» ,»Tlc^o«'il» •tttoorJ jon ftib
-noo owt drl'j, .*i o.">^tfT>«Jc» l»at{ ttioiI&^M n»i la^aX 1« Itinir
lo isflsiftiraiq owl 1^1 l^««x«i , liKoiirobl l«ori ;lo^-£l
wfl "id a^jiturioxo ^ir< *^»t rfjlw toat^xioo tail'* arifl
•«4atfn^ eifl "^ I^Xlor siftJ bmi «»f*Xrrjftqpoft9i>l Hiii lo Mioola
oiw aXiiuJjivibei rtJce^T-; \,i9ntoii» T» tov/rMj aXii -i3Jbwtf
Aom» uX aaoxaXTO^tq »rfT . : -\.},fo^ Jbrfooaei *h11 naul bftJ^arrXxaJtift
XXlAXlitiilatffxa •'Xd aincfcn^m 8niaiB.}< on9Y#le'z ttl lofttlfroa
^j1»«»1 lacfl ij^oswt *ifj itJr ».'>fr«»l>lv'«» t^jo i*X HtfWfT .aana »rif
-. - -• . ■."• ' vrioarfl *o.-' .ua «1
tendttd to be •ffectlv* until additional parties had been
••oured. The oomplainant B«all and the defendanti^ Barel,
Trego and Honeywell are related to eaoh ether, while Jones
and SturtOTant are not. Ve think it clear that it was
not the intention that Jonos should be held under th« oon*
tract, for it appears that the day after it was signed the
ether parties to it provided for the payment of intrrest
on thn sums that had theretofore been paid. This agree*
ment was not signt'd by Jones, and there its other evidenoe
in the oase that ol early shows that Jones was not oon«
sidered as being bound. After a most eareful considera-
tion of all the evidence in the record, we are of the
opinion that the finding of the Blaster that the contract
was to be in full force and effect from its date is not
sustained, but that such finding is manifestly against
the weight of the evidenoe. Vhethcr a contract is de«*
livered so as to become a binding obligation is a ques*
tlon of intent. We hold that the intention of the parties
was that it should not be binding until additional persons
had executed it; that as therr was a failure in this re*
gard, thf^ contxaot never was in force and effect. Other
allegations of the bill were in no manner proved by the
evidence. Complainant's entire case and his right to re*
cover is based upon the cAntraot, and the finding of the
master and the decree can only be sustained on the theory
that thr contract became effective at the time At was
executed, although thereafter abandoned, and since we
have held that the contract was never in effect, the decree
of the Oirouit Court of Cook County is reversed and the
oause remanded with directions to dismiss the bill for
want of equity. As this is a chancery proceeding we can
apportion the costs. Ve think the costs in this and
iittliot •lijtfw ,i»rtJ^« flo<3!» £>;.- u»#«X«i ♦n« XI»irx*n»'^ ^«« os»iT
■«0f " >.A ndl bXi<oi(« ©•col ^«!j r.o>..rt9^ni ad^ ^on
Bnaetiiirv i. s-xiiAi iitut ,BftnoXi ^cf bAitai« ^on asv d-a»a
•noo j ou :i.. (S'^no' '• ^ aw9H« x-t"SJt«Io — * ~ .ao »xli oi
-lOV^O^rtnoo Xijl«ifi9 j-wi r '" .itni/ocT . uj**. «a bntsble
'■'■■*?■/ »xsi 9-» ^i^inc.:" ^^"^i)iv» taifl XX« lo iiox,^
iortUiiur !»rii Ijbt * — ^ .0 ;.,aj.«>isl1 iui.i J-srii nolAlqo
*■- ^"i '-^-:'^ * oofi scxot XXtfH al ©a' ai 8««
• . ' noij-^aiXifa yiii>fil<f js »ctoe9ef - -»-r.yjtX
BtxQ^t.i^ii Laiioijxbo!^ ilttw anXiMiitf 9tf ^on bii^-<'.'.i -^ ^ .. ^^^ aaw
,.,-, -,(.,<. ^» ...,,'/ ■-■^- • -r • ••'■■■■'^+ - ' •^'■'* 'ii fra*irt)*»x» bJUl
«•./</ .,' t>©ro*H "i^i".^-: — i ill ©la*^ XXirf »il* lo naoittc^Bllu
•91'. »v j.^^Xt sltl iiam aaao anitiia n'^rusnleXqaioD .aocrsfeXra
Arft la snibn/.l atli bna ,ttMitnt9 9Ai ixoqu J»aaiKf aX frwt
Xt09iit "^lU KO b-tilainun »d x,Xno n«o aataafo •£* bn» xmfmmm
usw 1A> eyBxXi 9tU fa avl^oaTta anj»3»tf J&ai^aon '»K^ ^jsifi^
1^^ cr^fs f o- , , •^••nofcrntt^x ita^l«a*t*»«l^ xf^oiiiXa ^tad^yoaxa
aatoab ojk.. , — r. x > ..^ laTan bmw tomtinot^ MAi indi bXad 9rmt
a.^ff !,■,« te«^9T9i »1 x^iwoO aIoo!:> to #11/00 #iiraiXO aiii la
.w ^Axcf lii »9lmalb ni eaQitnorib Attw b9iiajiBV9t aay^a
-10.
th« trial court should be tqually apiortioned
betve«n tki« ooaiplalnaiit and tii« d«f«ndanta Tr«ge«
£ar«l and Uon«j««ll, each paying one-fourth
thereof, and it la so ordered.
WITH DIHBCTIOM.
-Oi-
, hi* « »> . ,
341 « 23686
ANTON J. CKiiMAi:, Bailiff etc.,
for use of ttolaert Eckhardt,
VSi
Appellees
CHICAGO BONDIMO & SURBTY GC
Appelj
APPKAL 7R0H
MTJNICIPAL GOITRT
07 CHICAGO.
"^11 I.A. 3 37
MR. JUSTICR ©•CONNOR delirered the opinion of
the court.
This iB a suit brought en a replerin bond.
The case was tried before the court without a Jury;
there was a finding and judgment in favor of plain-
tiff for $95.91, to reverse which defendant prosecutes
this appeal.
The facte are agreed, and the only point
urged for reversal is that the judgment entered in the
replevin suit in which the bond was given was insxxffi-
cient to support an action on the bond. The judgment
is as follows:
"The court finds the right of possession
of property in the plaintiff in replevin, but
held by the defendant for the payment of #34,71,
it is therefore ordered that Judgment on finding
be entered in the alternative; that plaintiff pay
the defendant ^34,71 in twenty days, or that a
writ of retorno habendo issue for the property
replevied, costs adjudged against the plaintiff."
The argument is that tnis judgment is insuffi-
olsnt because it finds the right of possession of the
property in plaintiff instead of the defendant. Section
22 of the replevin act provides that "if the property
.OOAOIEO «0
ssacE - x^«
. ;■•. V
8»*i/O500*iq iiTr»bnftl».b xfoliJw •air ,Xff,3Q| tcoI fiiJ
.X«9qqjs Bliii
iaioq \Icto «Tii brut ^bntt}^ S'XB e^ciftl driT
•llliranl eav nerXs a** bcotf »i£i rfoi/tef ni ilua niY»Xq«i
:eiroXXot mm at
*«fd ,«iT»Xq9i ni 111- 9td^ r.i t^'tf^oiti lo
.IV.>fi| lo ^n^arXiJaq »ii* 'iO"i itmiiK'H v,cf bXDxf
-iltwarfJ wi ;ff?«ic!3|bwt aX:x;f i*ji^ aX JnsffitrstB • r' r
noX*c98 .J'tiiiLnalftt »ri* lo feji»*aoi I'liJ^i. ij»Xq ni xizBqior<i
Xi-xi^tioi^ «/{.t li* iMnii I- Xo« niv»Xqoi of(;^ Jo SS
-2-
wae held for the payment of any money the judgment may
be in the alternative that plaintiff pay the amount for
vhioh the same waB rightfully held with proper damages
vithin a giyen time, or make return of the property."
While the Judgment of the court might be better express*
ed than it is, yet we think it is a sufficient compliance
with section 22. It in effect holds that the property
wae held by the def enclant in replevin for the payment sf
Boney, and it was ordered that unless the amount for
which is was so held be paid within twenty days, the
property be returned. This is all that the statute
requires, and the Judgment of the Municipal Court of
Chicago is affirmed.
\am #ntn^«t »'*^ x^aon: xn» To .*r r^^q '^lij 'lol blerf saw
^0 ^jri9ia>c«q ftxiJ lol nxv«iq«'x ni;)Kai^i9l:i»b 9ifJ \tf bX»xi bait
i»ii^ «a-\vB^ v>n»w^ aU^tlw bletq f)tS iilsd oe a«w «i xio ^w
390 - 23735
THEODORE F. toNCKMANU,
ApptUa&t.
â–¼ B.
REUBOT »>. DOHNELLEt,
Appellee.
MRr:nJSTICE O'COJ
»EAL FROM
CIRCUIT COURT
COOK COUITTT.
21 1 I.A. 3 47
)R dellTered the opinion of the
court.
Thie appeal involyeB tlie other memli^er of the saae
firm that is inyolved in the oaee of Yondrak â–¼. Donnelley ,
Gen. Ho. 33734. The faota being identical, the opinion
filed this day in the Yondrat oaae is controlling here.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Cc Dk Coimty
it therefore affirmed.
AFFIRi ").
\
acYcs - oee
.TTKUOO XOOO
250 • 23595
AUTO UTILITIES ^iANUPAC TURING
COMPANY, a corporation.
ApptllseJ
U. 8. BLOW PIPH and OUST C^L-
LBCTIUO :ca4PAHY^ a oorporftion.
App^
lant.
V^
/
211I.A. 3 55
APP'AL PROM
MUNICIPAL COURT
OP CHICAGO.
UH. JUSTICK THQitSCN delivered the opinion of the
oourt.
The Auto UtiXitiea lianufacturinjj Coapany, appellee,
hereinafter referred to &a the plaintiff, brought this ac-
tion in the }/.unioipal Court of Chicago against the U. &.
Blow Pii>« and liuet Collecting Compariy, hereinafter referred
to as the defendant, claiming a coBcaiBsion on a contract
entered into between the defendant and the ITational tialleablt
Casting Conpany. The plaintiff recovered a Judgment amount*
ing to $120.75, frora which the defendant hae appealed.
The plaintif was engaged in InBtalling certain
ventilators and etaeks in the plant of the iialleable Cast*
ing Company aa a part of a veiitilating eyatem. There wnre
â– oae ho ode needed in connection with this uork. Mr. Becker
of the plaintiff oomiiany conferred with Mr. Hahn of the
defendant oompany, and asked him to figure on these hoods
and subait his bid to the Malleable Casting Conpany. Becker
•ays he told Hahn, "in figuring the Job, to figure five per
cent for ae in compensation for what I had done on the Job.
\
V
\
deecii » oas
G G O
i»©iX»C!i.A
.f
• •AlIv^^A , V":;' ■./>^/a^.... ... w^«,. adT
.- .. erf* ^:;. . . ,. oa>?::lirr - .1.- x.^qisim- •-''- rrl noJ:*
;toa'xia09 a jso fioJtcaJteuioo >i snlMi^ie ,d^niibnr' *'''' ^^' . ..^
•taaC 9XtfjB<iXJji>: *i{J' ^o ;frtaXq «ri;f ni «:ri9«#0 brtw •lOifiXjttirsT
^•Xo»H .til .attovr nidi siilv noi^dSArcoo a2 bsibeftii eboo|| •aio«
t9>(o:i:: .^GtwipRoO ^JtirivC) tiLiSa9lisCi 9tii oi bid •tH tlmtua btsM
fii »yit a^iotii , ft^.ii/ai'" . '■■riaK blof »if (txsa
.cfot orii no onol* bad X ^«ciw lal noiJA«iTttqM90 nl 9£i lot i^3»&
•2*
H« aaid he would." The defendant ooiapany ultimately
oleeed the oontraot with the Malleable Casting Company
ooTering the hoods In questlAn, the amount inrolTed
iMlag #2415.00. The plaintiff's olaim ie based on five per
sent of that amount, whioh is $120,76. The nature of the
plaintiff's olaim is best expressed in the lan^^uage used
by them in a letter addressed to the defendant under date
•f Kay 4, 1917 » in v.hioh we find this language: "this
company furnished its serrioes to you in seouring an order
amounting to $2600.00 or $2700.00 from the Malleable Cast*
ing Company and the agreed commission to be paid us by
their Mr. Hahn was fivs per oent."
The defendant urges that the judgment should
be reversed because the making of any contract inrolr-
ing aervioes, on its part to secure an order or contract
for the defendant in oonsid* ration of the payment of a
oomaission to it by the defendant, was a matter beyond
the soope of the buainosn of the plaintiff as defined in
its sharter and therefore ul tra vires . It appears from
the record that tho corporate powers of the lifeintiff as
authorised by its charter y^^reF'^to manufacture, buy, sell,
use, and deal in automobile specialties; to tnAnufaoture,
buy, sell, use, and deal in and with, machines, goods,
wares, and merchandise of all kinds; to purchase, sell,
least and deal in invsntions, patentu, and prooesses,
•md in oonn'sction with Ite business of manufacturing,
buying, selling, using, dealing in and with machines,
goods, wares, and merchandise, patents, inventions, and
processes, to oonstruot, build, lease, own, and operate
all necessary factories, shops, buildings and plants,"
Xt^immlfJjf ^Dumnao iaabmfJob 9tVt * ,b£is<nr ltd S>taa tH
•x»q BTl'^ no 'ifimsixi ot salulb m^'itiJaiAlq 9d7 ,00,9X^24 3al««tf
i>««y 9i':^Mr^a' i agciTQX* Ja ?c' r1 ptiwlo »*'5f1:l.tnJ:«Iq
«lri^* j»ajsj»a«*X alxl.* w iloJUI . .
xabto OK sflri'Xtr»«>» «1 uo"^ oi aaoirrias a^i iJdxfsJtinci/l: tn&qMioo
•ineCi •£(fM)XX«U «f(i xo'xl OO.OOVSl no OO.OOdS^ o^ 3nl;]-rtuo<sui
•trloTCfi io6iJ«oo -jy.£i to ^it'^jm srtt ©aufirvnifi &9«t«>vm: srtf
io«T:;Jjioo -io 'i»bio rrra nixtt^tt o* liusq a*.t i:o ^a^olvr^H y?i
» "^o Ifldcxsq ' .'ol^A-s-'bianoi) ni Jn»?i>ns'J»i» ^>i
bL'0>c9ti I***** « ajjT? tiTUibti9"tfb sfljf >£<f ti o^ nciawxw!;oo
nJL uanllftb a* ^"iiinlBlff 9tlt 'to 5?e©nJti»jnf «;1J 'io »<ioc»c *j(*
»4t lli*itl4l^ 9;{J "^0 etf)»'cq «^ato<rt©© atfi Jsri^ b-xoopi '■•1.7
(•'xc/i-oslunaM oJ ;8-^i^.LBJt&«>(ia oLliSomotu» ni la9Ji bus ,ft«ti
,«l>eo2i ,of)nliXo«at ,Ai;Mw biui ni Im»b ctii\ ,9ax; .XXaa .^utf
,XX»8 .•SAdcttn; oj ;ab^X^' ' '" -^ aaJt&rtexioafta bnai •taT«v
,a9')a»0 97q biia tUia^iati «c:no.Jn»vfiX nJL X^eb ban t«at^
,;;inJ:ti/;foA'Ufniiit! to aa^nlswrf v*" " - rol^foptmoo cti £iMi
bOA .aAoi^csTni ,!iJa*4£|qi ,*^ '<^^ •a«i:«w«itbooa
aj-fliaqo box? ,rvo .inrar.fiX ,bXJ:j.o , jr.i.T.j.-r? - -" .a9a««90t(i
*,BSntJ ' Tjnib/ijutf .aqoffo ^^^Itf^to ■—-• - fXjB
In m««ting this oontention advanoed by the
defendant, the plaintiff arKues that it was within its ohar»
tar powers to Install the rentilating aystam in queetion,
Bor would it ha7« been beyond its oharter powers if it had
installed the hoods used in conntotion with that eystsa,
and that if the plaintiff had th<' right to install the
Tentilating eye tern, then as inoidental to such power « it
had the right to sublet any part of the work. Thie, no
doubt, is true, but if fails to mest the defendant's con-
tention. Ths plaintiff did not sublet the oontraot for
the hoode, but the defendant made an independent contract
direct with the National (Malleable Tasting Company to
furnish the hoods, and th> plaintiff* s claim, as distinctly
stated in their Istter frora which we have quoted ia that
they are olaiming a oommiaBion for services rendered in pro«>