and oteve Cerny entered into an agreeaient under wnich Janci
contributed the s\iin of «2&0 and istete Cerny |4.60, «*iioh money
was used in ouying axx bags of wool ^ioh were deposited with
the National ^ool Goapany until Daoeraber d, 1916, when they
were sold; that on August I, lftl6, the four parties named en-
tered into a partnership agreeioent for the purpose of buying
â– kins and ''pulling wool**; that Janci contributed thereto
|106o, i-alansky #liO&, John Oerny ♦&oc and ;>teve Cerny 4i51,77,
aakiug a total sua* of 9«,X01.77; that this xuoney was used by
the partnersiiip in purchasing skins ana wool; that under the
partnership agreeaient at«T« Cerny was to hsTt charge of the
business and the wool ovined by uhe partnership was tc stand in
his name, and that the profits or Iobess of the business should
be divided equally among the partners; that Janet, «4io h»d n©
•a^erienoe in the work conteaiplated, was to continue at his work
\
'ii'.u .>'J iA -^v. xJ
S02 .A.i liS"
7
.«v
^8 t«ila ,HA^^fSv'
Ksvrrc
IStKl A :j-riill y^cm-^ .....
.fTtJOri iic'C;
stflvsoA .B^rutaifi
i lair* a
;.:~;403
riJ
as ft mftchinitt and tnat tlic othar tlirae p&rtiaa wera to work
for tha partnarship at ubual wages.
Tha master further found that Btova Cerny pur-
cheead certain skins for tha e\m of t3»717,60; that for a
return of thcaa skins to tta« sallar he reoelTed a oredif of
$1,536 .40 and also a credit of ^77,63 for pulling wool from
"shearling 8" hwlonKing to the seller, leaving a balance dua
on Hccount of $2,101,77; that this balanoa was paid in cash,
of which the defendant Steve Cemy contributed 550,77; that
the wool TT^iich was pulled froie theae skins was derositad with
the Katicnal aocl Coicpany and the warehouse receipts therefor
were siede out in tne namr of utave Cerny«
The master also found that steva Cemy, while tha
otner tnree parties wera engaged in the work of the partner-
ahif , entered into a contract vitn one John avatik to act as
hik^ fcrexan in a wccl rulling business, under wnich contract
Cemy was to receive, in addition to tne wages usually paid
for uucu work, one«thirct of tne profits of the buiiness. >
The aviaenoa introauced bel'ora the master shows
that oteva Ueriuy did not diacfcoaa hiit eifiployment under this
contract to his partner Janci; tiaai. he did say to lalansky,
"V/e ^I'C eoing to work for John t>Tatik because he proenised sia
a certain percent," 3te^a Cerny, jralansky and John Cemy
thereafter worked about two months for ovatik. The master 1
found, and the evidanoe suows, that about August 14, X&16, I
feteva Cax*ny turned over to ovatik two warehouse receipts for
I
tha wool dciosited witii tha iiational kool coapany. uvatak then
pledi^ea tneas xecaiptvs tc secure loans made to hi& of about
$2«Cwu« A praiit of «!lc»<i.db waa realised Dy the partnership
froiA a sale of the wool purcfiaaed by Janoi and atava Cemy in
August, 1916, esid sold Deeeaber ti, li>16, for which profits
Cerny has accounted to his partners.
tub 9on« r»tcf
8«- ' ■.- SVi, n:.;
fi-iJ*»CO titles ■T04
suroxiiji ^«»^endt ftii^ ;.ri./i.>.3^t«>iiop-i.^iJt .^oc^9i>ir9 ^A7
,«s.,-rjv., ,,1-i J .- )f <.; Ji.'^j
9iiAj ".■-■■■'■■iaQiS>iQiqjtt» itksL
jii» "icti^a..' aveJ
• ^^tl^«f Xd^'liii*'Y9<iJ
'iOiK^iiXV
OJ-
i I
Cerny realised « profit altogttlaer of $5 » 524. 78
frocB his contract aad tronaaotlone with John idTatik. Vhllo
tho OTldenca shows that ho refused to aooount to his partners
for ell of these profits. It doeo appear that Pebrunry 18,
1917, he paid lalansky the monuy advanced by I'alansky to the
partnership, together with hi a share of the profits on wool
purchased in Auf^ust, 1916; on laroh 21, 1917, he paid Janci
on the same basis and in addition thereto he paid janol
$1M.2C and Iralaasky ^76,6i;, tue latter t><o sums being the
amounts allowed by hia as tj::elr ahare of the profits accru-
ing out cf the use of the warehouse receipts by John JTatik,
The decree of th(? oourt i© In h11 reafccts In
Rcenrd»nce with the rcfort and r^corr^iendationt of the rcaster.
The d«»f»nd«rt 3tev« Cerny hrinrs the cee* hrre by pr-roal,
Vrom the large -rcliu&e of evidence heard by tht
autster it Is evident that the chief controversy between the
parties is as to whether the partnership agreement between
thes was of a general or lislted nature. The parties oontra*j
diet eaoh other In amterial ways, but from the whole evldenc*
we think It perfectly clear that when the parties entered
into business together they Intended to invest their money
and servlees in a general skin purchasing and wool pulling {
business.
The decree of the court provides for a disaolutli
of the partnership and for a dietribution of the sua of
^&,524.7S, whloh the evldenoe shows was received by oteve
Cerny as the result of his traneaotiunb with John :>v&tik.
There can be no doubt of the wrongful conduct of 3teve Cernjr j
in delivering the warehouse receipts which belonged to the
partnerahlp for the UtiS and baiei'xt cf hiiDself and Lvatlk;
this was an unauti^orised diversion of the partnership
property, and the complainants have a clear legal rif'Tht to
a finding thet the defendant, Steve Cerny, be required to
ai : - -. - . -
.•Tail, v-^ : i '; .. ,1) t:*.r: -
- - . if. bstaiimirq
.i.;c axs^;;i 9i&S8 9iid^ (to
.3v^ ^Mumloi bam QS,ttti%
irt* WOT'"''
^Bor. 7l»rti ^9i»v :4bn«ini t*^ «0£l#og«i iioniB-w '^ki
g^lXX^q Xoow bne j^Aiib^xioYi/if nJtifi fjOt? -^ taoiv-tds bflUi
OoiitiXv rot «j»l>J:rot<it Jittoo »iti to «»oio«b •ii'^
. xI^.t: ni.'.. -Jiw «nttxJo««<t«ii aid to *lA'li»rr on^r to >raic»0
Vivi?*. ^vwj^. io cf-jAiijitiso Jifliaootw *tii to #«f«ob oa »d «»c» oi*r?r
■^_ :^£M! tloeouA to ii.'iamii ^um 9m» ©«> -"■••: '"• r -.jTBt
f :fri"-5i"i tPiu^S. iiif)Io a avaxX BjTi»xxi*I^i'''''» •■'^-^ ' f''-^ .â–
.;-. .;» ♦•l.'.l"" ■■^•'■••^ , tCT«btt#tv7 '.. . .^ ..'.i.t.-i;.i i Jd
aeocunt to them for the profits derived by him from th« us*
of this property.
It isi contctnded by the def«nu»nt, who brings /
the ease herc« that a material Tariance exit^ta between the |
thc>cry of coicplaicAnt's case as shOTm by tha bill, and tha ^
daorea of the court. There ia no merit in this contention.
The theory of the bill id thut the defendant had uade a
wrongful use of the partneraixip funds, froo which he li&d. da-
rived profits, and the decree, as we understand it, proceeds
on the theory that the transactions i3et«een ovatiJc and oteya
Cerny vere transaotionsn of the partnership and were on be*
half of and for its benefit. The decree as we road it does
not find na a fact that the partnership had entered Into any
•grewoent with svatik and Cerny. The lanj-\iage of this part
of the decree, v^en read with the whole decree, leads us to
the conclusion that the chancellor aeant to hold that the de-
fendant's conduct was sucxi as to create a resulting trust in
ffivor oi the partnership. It is true that the decree did
not Oi ecifically find thai fi. resulting trust rreulted fro«
defendtmt'B conduct, but we Ihink tliet nc other ccnclUBlon
can be arri-ved at frcAs a careful exaifdnfition of the whole
decree.
In kM.it). V, U.l'uh , e.5 111. 189, the oupreire
cou2t held th«t if tue proofs in o. caae and the facts stated
in a bill showed Xdxa existenoe of a resulting trust "that vraa
sufficient without nujuxiii, it u, resulting trust,**
The fevideMC* does not show a supplemental agrea-
iaect, as contended by defendant, The real niiture of the t
actions between hiiu and bvatilc were unknown tc complainants.
While it appears that Steve Cerny, ialnneky and John Cerny we»^
employed by Svetik, we think the evidence foils to show that
thic eraployaent constituted a trodi float ion in any way of the
partnership agreement. ^Oerny-»a. duty in relation to his part- 1
>
ail. «>» <»S99 9 » tn - '
-at it;.,
ace
-^ . it»tf jUPii.
rulv,ao«w
^ Carl
/oisl A «« i>axt ;toa
ti .9 ;* I i * * J i w -
i^t... • U l\*i.
nert w&s clearly to preserve the p^rtnerehip assets ond not to
deal v/iti-i the . for iiis individual benefit without the cooaent
of hia pajrtnara, tie taink th9 OTioonce shows tbnt hie conduct
was in the main secretive and that the profits he derived fron
his relations with ovatik were in the laain due tc iiis 7iela«>
tion of a liuty «hiuh he owed to hiid partners.
The decreu does nut, as urgedi require the de*
feridant to contrihute the .515 a weak jaid to niiu by .-jvatik
autsenuant to Auguat, X916. he received aa profits fron his
venture with iivatik the suts of ^5,624,78 in addition to the
^15 per week p&iu to him. The accepxance on larch 21, 1^17 «
by Jeinci of ^151,20 and by tP.laneky of t7ii,6{j did not excusa
defendant frcm ncccunting to coxaplninanta for the actual
proflto which he derived by hia use cf the aasetR of the part«»
nerehip, Lven if it be admitted that this money was, in form, i
1
paid in oettlemcnt of their claiiaa agcinst defendant, the evi- \
denco a'acvm that they received the aioney witiiout full knowledga
of hi« *rcn£;ful use of the wsrehcuae receipts, |hil3 ips v.
Reynclufe , 236 111. 121.
The court did net err in taxing the costs of the
proceedings again »t the defendant. There ia sufficient evidenes
in the record to vrarr^nt the evident ocuolusion of the amster
that the defendant had placed the wool whion was ownea by the
partnership at the disposal of Jolm JvatiJc* and that tnie ccn>
duct was fraudulent as against the ri(^ta of complaintmts.
The dsoree of the Circuit court la affirmed.
â– >
>
mt -ton brtft ofjutM fixiftmn4^«q »£U •yi^naiQ oi v. l^nnro «««' ttta
^9i&a09n it YTMie ^octftViTO 9ii- . aid "2:0
ao'x'\ l>avi':iv jdi tBdi ban 9V^t»x»»« aJL43ii: exli ai 8«w
•Aloi:;- bJUi 9i^ pub iilAOi 9df al itr^r ■iiiH', ^aoXt^Ini tlA
- ; :... : I' . , .• 09b ♦47
aixl aot^ eli" ,.?6.W3i;A oj 4n«tfp9acfv«
98t?*.D*'Cnai Xiu'i tuwUi>n x»mm *£U b9i>rXsoyi ^^-ti^j tab
•'"' t'HJJJj^ .8;)'.'i[lso*T «e«Ofi»i£:v " " . ':..
9i1;;" " • ■' ■,^.•,■; -jii^ ^iai.si»c" p.x i'i'» j :?n cii.: ^i:-.^^':
24« - 243 71
A oor} oralicn^
Appellant ,
vs.
' i
Ajj^^nAi rnrri .^uiiicir ai«
) COURT or CHlCAao.
211 I.A. 504
lMKr.IVEF:EB ?IIE vIIKIOK CV frS' CCURt.
?hia is an appeal froc? i* ^ud^aaent of th« i u-
cJLoipR} ccurt in ftsyor cf tl;.'? defendant.
In the !«t«iflns«nt of cIpIjbi fllfi'd in th» trial
ccurt by pi pontiff it -.vasi pJ 1 ee:o4 thet th« defendant was
indebted to it ir. liie b^jli Df ^^Seo a» darJB^je? for the breadh
of IX contract v.ruwr tius toyr..i» of whiat the defendant agreed
to »eli ?uid d«?iiY«r certain wc^rehAndiae tc plaintiff ,
TJk; d«f«ndi«nt filed an :\ffidATit, of merlte in
wiiioSi i'v. ytt vij> i%(i defence lo the caofe SiHdtt by plaintiff
in ita ataie'^ent of ol%lm. The cavtlcn of tbie affidavit
Aa fi>^5 fcllowa:
"uTATK- C.r 11.1 :«ci:? J
CITY OF CHiCAOO ) Be. In tht, tuisicipHl Court of
First l;i strict / Cblc?-go.
JOHK aSXTCH & COtl'ATrr.
a corporaticR
liAKU^ACTURING COSO^ATIY,
a corporatlcn. )
(
ST ATI: OF ILMFOIS )
COmiTl 0? CCOK ) «»,
CITY OP CiaCAOO )
This affidavit «ae aigned by oais Bens as president of the
defendMit company, and the Jurat thereto is as fellows:
^06 ./
-i' Till.'
r^iT-
â– ^':
n11>
*1^^
£fA»»td
e
bser-rv-
.t -
tti t.
':ti.?r
J..v.ai;
, _[
'iC« w*T,vi
"GubaorJLljad and •«crn to httoTft sie thib let aay ot S9T«i»
b»r» A. r;, 3.t-l7.
And I hHT9l>y oaxtity that by vixtu« oi: tii« Irwb cf In-
diana, I aa autuorised to Adoilnistar odths,
Jt-tiXi ?.,« ••.uci'.ei-i.,
Eotary Jul^lic,
tiy comiaiiiQion nxpirut lot. 2S), Tvi^^l.''
It i3 i.nwis'i.od t.ji«it. ii, ijipreara xkiux x.hn affldatit
of W'arltt vtaa aworn to in Cook C' unt.y b-tfore « notary public
of Indianr, who Jjr>d ne l^jrO. ."»ulhf.;rHy to td'.iiiyjister oftths
in Cook Ccuttty, illiliois, 'j?ho reocrd before uo d©«8 not
diacloao thiot the question presented here 'im» raised at any
tlmt if) thfc trial ccwrt* *?o bill of exoepticn* or »teno*
gra^kic report a|?peara lo the record, and we are unable,
under th* olroucatancee, tc »ay that evidenee wrs -Jot intro-
duced en the trial tending tc prove that the aff tdaTlt in
question w^e in fcict eworn tc in tae '^tatt cf Indiana. 3o
far »it ec are apprised the plaiKtiff mb&9 no effort to pre-
•ent this qa«etio» tc the triel ocurt, an^d if it be true
th«it it Y.-fint to trial upon the i8su<>s prftsent^d by the
6tat«fflifcat of cl6.ia «nd tht allefifcd affiaavit of icerita, it
iRUCt be hold that it h»a rra.i.-ved itj? right ic preserit the
point for decision here, Ihe eaae iis a icuith-eiace. caoe and
hCTice no writtew pleadings are required. The ca«e ie to be
regcrded aa whetAver the crvldence introduced ixukee it.
Edfcertoa v. Ci>ifc»M:0 « etc . , 24' 13 1. Apr, SH.
It »ay be conceded that the oaptxcn of the affi-
4aTit above set forth Bhonre, pri«Bja f£cie» thpt the affidavit
trae not aworn to in the State- of ln6ianm, ie think, however,
that if the point had been preeaed m the trial court the de-
fendant could have showj by proper evidence that the affida-
vit wae in fact eecrn to in Indiatia, whether such evidence
waa introduced on the trial cannot be deterrained trtm the
record here. Viuv r^tsen v. Xecple , 78 ill, 645,
?
J
-7
V9t tii tfl«> i iJ^ *>>'?-
IJu
tlt»biYt» wa:
1
-â– jcwtifiifl; :>
.^9T9Tr«x( ,ij . .'■41;? ^i «i: «t«v
< •tit iinl b«ni«ift;r«b »<f ^ocuuio JUlii itdJ aa bwonbyiJaJL vaw
>
It la assorted by oc«ng<?l for plaintiff that d«-
fcnrtRnt vms rftouired und«r certain ru?.e3 tif tht nvnioijttil
ecvrt to fil5 nt: sfTiAfvit of rtr it^ t.c th-t clRl.t of plRin-
tiff. The ryl^a rrlled vpar "by o««U'^v')3 nr^ n^t centftlned in
tfcfi rf'OC'Tc'i >jc-fcr© vs. "c fj^r ne "•••$ of-:- Jetennine they were
net lrtrf>dufle<1 f»n t>i« tri»!l ?'.nd w* cannot trlke jt;;'ioi»l no-
tice of t,hi>ir «ent#nt9« *r. PdciltiCT'ial tS'»nsoript cf record
wfi« filed iif^Tt: Jnnr 3» IflR. TLis eddltlcsi:.! record oon-
tatne yuntit r>vr»"rrta t; \jc ccjies of rults le Rna 19 sf th«
Kunioipal cc«rt certified ic b.. cce ct tii« Judges cf that
court. The oertif toation of the Juog@ does net iSOikQ thm
rule* part of the r«oorc< ct tnis o<^se.
^° I.ap iftar', v« S,j»Piititr9f?n .^ Co,,* 183 ill. App, 669,
It ^m* held that an o&J action to an affifia-vlt of merits on the
grouiiue that it did not comply with rul«9 cf tho Municipal courjb
could net be urgea en review, '^nere the rait* of thmti court
were nut jpreserved in t/ie reeord,
•the Jttd0B«nt of the municipal court ^.ll'j be af»
firteed*
>
tfiii! ,«.iM. vWm S;^
cur<»9 t(' h'»Sfn*je
tivfhi'-
♦ '>ti^'ii-;».
â– *i^>oiiitfjt
»Sde .rig.
1
1 ^f'XJtfOC
-lli 2.
275 • 24202
C. £. PRATT, di Ing businast ••
Iog«n Square Autcmo\»ll« 3t«itlon« ^
'• /
AIlIJll TRQIi UUaiClkAL
I ) COURT C7 CHICAGO.
IMDIAH RIVBR CARDER COPJORATIOli
A|.pell»nt, ;'
211 I.A. 505
MB, PIUESIDnrO JUSTICK TamOL
msLivERiro THE oriBiOR 0"P rm> court.
This Is an appeal from a Judgment of the JfuniclpaX
eourt in faror of plaintiff for the sua of ^150 ,76 anterad
of record in that court on Koveiaber 21, 1917.
Certified oopiea of the appeal hond in the rec-
ard show that an appeal waa taken by defendant from the Judg*
neot and not from the order overruling a motion to vacate
the Judgment entered in the oauee on oeoember 17th,
It is asserted in each of eight assignments of
error appearing in the abstract of reoord that the court
•rred in refusing to vacate the Judgment in question. An af-
fidavit was filed in the cause upon irhloh the motion to vacate
vas based. We have examined this affidavit and it is our
opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion in dis*
allowing the motion. In any event it appears ttntc in the or* .
that \
der disallowing the motion Ahe defendant was given 60 days
within which to file a bill of exceptions, Bo bill of excep*
tions or stenographic report is included in the reeord* and
we are not permitted to review the action of the trial Judge
tidxe overruled the motion to vacate; even if it be eonoeded that
the defendant has perfected his appeal from the order in quea*
tiOB, his failure to preserve for review, by bill of exceptions,
the affidavit in support of the motion compels us to affirm the
Judgmmt of the 2funiaipal court. The Judgment is not void I
upon its face. Boyle v. Chy traus , 125 III, 870. '
ATFIRMXl).
SOSt^.
( «5f:'!TA . ...-^otAo jHvia lUKTirr
.OdA02H:> 10 TaODO
£03 .A.I f IS
iRYSir K0IT8UC cmaissfM «$ui
lAqiolfU/M 9<1^ to ia«ai^at, m ao-xl lAdqcr* aa si old'?
9^Ba«v oi aojLi^Oitf s x»yc> i9biQ oxxi Oiozt ioa bam tama
lo •i^n»aii«9t«a« ;td^ltt lo doa* ai JE>»iti9ei»a ax ^I
ttJuo^ 9dS imiS biooBT to Saart»da 9dS at aai7ii»<iq« tovtft
•1« oA .aol^caup ai ;^n»a@&iit a^^ »jr«0JBv- o^ »aXai/l»7 ai b»Tt^
KifO «1 ^1 ba« ljtr«ftJt1rl« aijtt bvHlmnMl sTAd aV .b*««tf ««v
••lb nl floiiaioalb adM •tsrd'M ioa bib ttaoo ttsii Jsdi aolttlqo
•10 •di al :emtt axaaqq* tX ta9r9 xnm til ,noi*ota *xit ^almoilm
•iC«b Od ii«Tls ««« inabaattb •dj^^aolioa 9di BalworX««lb fb
•q[aox» lo XXltf otf .aaoliqasx* to XXltf « alil o^ daliiv nlxillv
boa ,b!ioo«v •di ai babifXool al itOii»% eliiqai^iaavjrw to anol^
9^u\^ lalri ftiU lo ooli'OA 9tU walT*« o4 baiilnxaq ^on 9t» aw
^jui4 bfbaoaoo ad tl \i iiaro ;»^so«v o4 aoiiotA. 9sii baXuiiaro oibr
•aajjp al labio aiU ao«l X«»i^a 8X4 baJoaliaq aaxi Jcuibnalab axli
.anoX/qawta lo XXld xd «waiTan nol arxoaaTq o* «»iull«l aid t»oli
•tit anllla o^ ai; aXoqmoo aoXtom •sLi lo i-zoqqAra al ^lr«blll« ft<U
bloT ^oa al iaao^birt •^T .lives X«qiolcfi// ati) lo in»m»bi;t
.3V6 .Xfl esx , aii4rci>trf0 .▼ •f^iog .aoel a^l aoqu
[«A
S07 . 24234
\
nrHAK 8ILVKKKAS,\ }
Appctlc*, ) ^
\ j ^JtAL yKOk MUIiCiiAL
, } /COURT 0Â¥ CHICAGO.
HARRY KORShAK and If AAC ) /
lAaKKOVITZ,
•Appellalita.
y
/
211I.A. 506
MR. tRKSIDIKG JUSTICE DEVJER DI!!I.IVJ?RED TEB OH^^IOH OF
THE CCURT.
This is B.n appeal from a judfcnent of the kiani-
cipal court against the defendant und in favor of the plain-
tiff for ^639.21.
In the statement of claim filed by plaintiff it
appears that the claim of plaintiff is based upon a Judfinent
note which it is alleged was executed by tixe defendant, I.
Lashkovitz, ffl,%de payable to the order of Harry Korshak and
by him endorsed and delivered to plaintiff. An affidavit of
merits was filed by defendants on August 4» 1017, which set
up in substance that the defendant Korshak had delivered tJtie
note in question to the Lawndale ^ash and Door Company; that
the defendant Lashkovltx was merely an accommodation party to
the note and that the Lawndale 3aah and !}oor Company had full
knowledge of this fact; that the Lawndale Sash and Door Com-
pany received the note from Korshak in payment cf an indebted*
ness due it by him and that said lawndale 3a8h and Door Com-
pany had agreed that the ticie for payment of the note would
be extended from time tc time for a period of two years; that
the plaintiff did not receive the note by endorsement and
delivery from Korshak and that plaintiff was not a bona fide
bolder thereof, and that suit was instituted in his name "la
an endeavor to preclude the defendants therein from asserting
the defense hereinabove set forth.
X
t>
00 3 ,Ar
,».7^
itnliitq
.:â– '-% .-Xid.
in ..'i.v/' -i) tats D»eioxin;;
-r.ic; â– i:;- , i!/j> stsBa
hits, JajX!^4*oiiais* x^w . j
Unll-xsav* AO-x't oi:»lttxii *ti$»ij>\9l>»b 9ii3 •6ufO*«q Oi tovMftua tun
On December 27, 1917, a jury found in favor of
the pliiAntlff and JudUyscnt was entered in his favor rgainet
defendants for the aua of $636.82. This verdict and Judg*
Bent were vacated en January 4, 1918, and on January 9, 1916,
an order was entered that "the affidavit cf merits cf defend-
ants stand as a plea in abatement." On Janunry 10, 1918, an
order was entered of record in the cause, a part of ivhich is
as follows:
"This matter coming en again to be heard on the agree-
ment of the parties that the affidavit of merits of the
said defendants, iTarry " orshak and la?* -c Lashkcvitx, here-
tofore filed, 8tanda a8 an affidavit in support of a motion
in the nature of a plea in abatement of the action, and not
as an affidavit of merits to the action;
It is ordered tnat said affidavit of merits of Harry
Korshak and Isaac Laehkovitz heretofore filed as afore-
said, atand as an affidavit in support of a motion in the
nature of a plea of abatement to the action, and not as an
affidavit of merits."
on motion of plaintiff the affidavit of merits or
plea in abatement was stricken from the files, and it is in-
sisted here that, the court erred in so doing. The point raised]
by counsel is not before us. The plea in sbatemeBt or affi-
davit of merits, whatever the document may be called, was on
motion cf the trial court stricken from the files and it
became thereby no longer a part of the record. The instrument
is not preserved in a bill of exceptions.
^^ Witteman C orayany v. Go eke , 200 111. App, 108,
it was held that a ruling of the court striking a pleading
from the files cannot be reviewed ^n a court of appeals unless
the pleading and ruling ihereon are preserved in a bill of ex-
ceptions. Town of jcott V, Artman , 237 ill. 394, The plead-
ing in question, «hici4 ia set out in the abstract, is on its
faes an insufficient answer to the claim of plaintiff. It
appears therein that Korshak, the defendant, delivered the
note in question in payment of an indebtedness, and the
>
-Ijnetsfc "to •li-;
-istRis »xf* no JbtM^fl t;c<
ion 6o« «n<»x:t^9a »4i;r lo
to out ^as lal ik^rui&rrelKft
1'^ v'i' ari OS
-rti 111 ndi uioal aa^ai'Z.^tt Sinr j'aeaB^jotf*' at M»lq
b99tm juioq fttit .j^ftab oe ai b«tv« iiJifoo 9tU iBd& 9'xaLCl 6«jtai«
• itltB 'to ita96iai«iix lit. «t8lq f^dT .««; etul^rf io
.■^i foJTA ft-i^Xil »itJ moil aaaJoxTCit i'tisao fjai- >ii««
ttBOiRi/ sl«i>^>;i* lo .:»Tvoo « a^ bdv^irsi scf jTonoAO B«fi']: «ii} atotl
-X* lo rix«r M al b»-rada9T: »i»xCtf :sa-^Xxnc Ji»iui j)itJLX»a«.ti siii
"btt^Hi 9A1 ,*86 ,1X1 VSii ,f_^ .aoc»i«*q«o
•i/. ..^ostlstia aiiaU nx iuo tux^i« «a>:»x4«4jip ai ^1
. llx^sx .?> #a*loi?.t£}eai; i<re 0OAt
•m Dnil ,»KdXl£>«Ja9J»al MA r ■)l;te«<;p til ■»t9a
promise to extend the payment of the note from time to time
•eema to be unsupported by any consideration.
The Judgmait of the Municipal Court will be
affirmed.
ArVIKlDSX).
917 - 2Ak!i4
â– \
ABRAHAM LXF^E,
\App«llett,
▼•. \
CHICAGO WA3TE CQiil'AirY,
Api^«llan
) AI*EAL TR<M I4U? ICIJ^AL COURT
07 CHICAGO.
211I.A. 507
MR, PRISSIDIHG JUSTICE DEVKR
D3ELIVKRKD THE OPIUIOrr OP THK COUT!?.
This it an appeal from a Judgment of the >'Unioi->
pal court in favor of tht plaintiff and against the defendant
for the eum of |20C«
The only point raised by the briefs of counsel
is whether the trial court should have adxaltted certain «7i<
dence which it is olalaed if admitted would have shown that
plaintiff's olaia was based upon an attempt on his part to
represent, as attorney^ conflicting and hostile interests*
Plaintiff, an attorney, testified that June
20, 1917, he called defendant cofflpany on the telephone, that
he talked with Ur. Hofnauer, an officer of the oonpany, that
he told Hafnauer he had certain information that defendant
was being robbed, which information he would give to hia if
he would call at plaintiff's office; that he, plaintiff, dis-
elosed this inforrcatlon to Hofnauer and the source froa which
it eant to plaintiff; that Hofnauer said he would inTestigata