the aatter and if it should develop that defendant was being
robbed he would ramunerate plaintiff for this information;
that three days later Hofnauer called plaintiff on the tele-
phone, saying to him, *Coae over quiolc, we got the gang. I
find we have been robbed of about ;j^l5,000 in the past year.
Two of the men are in the office new," In response to this
•all plaintiff went to defendant's office and he th^*e ex-
\
•7>ofXs>f;
;.ijje 9iii Trot
"tit ^J'iifnisitq ,«ci *jwidf jsc "Titfitic;
affllned two aen who w«re In th« office and later took th«B to
tht Saat Chicago Arenue police atation, where he further ex-
ajBined then for the purpose of getting information relative
to the alleged thefts fro« defendant. The eridence ahowe
that plaintiff ipent aoae further time and perf oz»ed other
aerTicea on the aame day in an effort to discover the identi-
ty of the alleged thioTea. On the following acming plaintiff
and Hofnauer met at the i^aat Chicago Avenue atation and plain-
tiff prepared two *John Doe" warrants; he vrna preaent ehen
one Coldatein waa arreated and he and Hofnauer went to the
place of buaineaa of a man named Rioharda, in the basement of
idiioh waa found 10 balea of iraate. Plaintiff teatified that
he waa with Hofnauer and the police officera until 3 o'clock
in the ofternoon of that day; that Hofnauer appeared to be
"cooling off a bit," and that plaintiff left him with the
auggeation that if he waa wanted he could be called at hia
office; that that waa the laat plaintiff had to do with the
eaae except to appear aa a witneas before the grand Jury.
There ia a direct conflict between Hofnauer and 1
plaintiff aa to what waa aaid by tuem at different times, with!
reference to the alleged employment of plaintiff aa attorney [
for defendant. The evidence diaolosea that Lepine, an at-
torney, signed the complaints upon which warranta were Is-
sued for the arrest of persons charged with the alleged
thefts, and Hofnauer aaya that Lepine aaid he did thia ao aa
to protect the defendant from liability for the arreata. Ths
defendant offered to show by ths testimony of a witness that
plaintiff's appearance at defendant's office on the day pre-
sedlag the iaauance of the warranta waa brought about by ths
request of one iTeldman, who waa in defendant* a office at ths
time plaintiff waa called upon the telephone. An objection
•vi*«I»« «•!*«« olnJt s«'^**»s to ••o(riaq, ^Ai lot iKii:^ b^atam
rtUnl^lq acLitn^J« :sn - - '..i^^bUz sAi "io t*
-,f<U!-^ to» noi*A.J« ci/.isiv' og^ftirfJ) #«/r» - ti :t»«»nloH l>Jl«
t rv- Jr?^a©^<i Hip' ^ajs-xtaw *»()€■nri[o!** vmS box»q9Tq llii
**;:. : ,t3«w !t« cel«<l OX Srnjml aaw /folitir
:^c fa^ «^^ litin i9Mim'>Q}^ ti^tv Him Ad
•rf ©J r«i/»j»^oS i«tl.*f ;Y«^ *«iS* "50 ao«nt»*t« arf* ffl
eti* iiix. 7.oX "iti-Jftijaiii *Ad-^ .its » 1^6 aalXooo"
ai£iv Iji l^eJlAa »<f /)Iifoa sii iijalaut* •«» *A tt, fmtli n<9t^d«»^aiaa
9f i j»Ax{ ^Itluifii^ ;ra«I aiU anv^iut^ 3MJii ;»9ilto
«K'x^l iit^i^^St aii^r rrolad aaeoiiiir a aa xiMi<|«7A o<} iqttOJte aa«o
on* i«mfialo-i naaip^a«f ^ai^Saoo .Jdu-iU b iix '5'j:t>>ii?
inaio^l . Ijfsa a«*- ;f» UinX«i<i
-aJt aittw n^svnjiMm il&4x6r AOqOtf «^iijtd£<T(«»o aji# IJ^^n^Xii ^-(»a%o;t
»ii ' '\:is &\Aii 'xountntoiH bi'u> ^u Jin At
-•iq X** aiW no aoi%lo a^imline'Hft ^4» «.;ajsiisr»siqa 8ntl#nlJiX<j;
-'i.^ Jo aaiT'- - ' *.TM«»la;> «u ait^ ■- .- ". '-' - r- ■'-> .ta^Mpa^x
to this offsr was sustained. \ye tiiink this STidenos should
haY« been adzuitted*
It should be kept in mind that we are dealing
here with the conduct of an attorney* an officer of the
oourt* ;h« contention is tuat Lepine's voluntary offer of
information to the defendant's officers, and iiiu efforts in
procuring the arrest of persona charged with the thefts,
were made for the purpose of protecting hie olient, Fsldman,
in a pending controversy between alta and one Richards, who,
it is intiioated, together with Feldiiian, received certain
property which it is charged was stolen frost the defendant
eo9>pany. Hofnsuer testified that plaintiff said to him:
**! have a client named ieldisax^i who knows
something about some goods being stolen from your
place. 1 can't give you Mery much inforjuation,
can*t give any naaes, I can*t say very much, but
this JPeldi&an has beeri a ua-ica^aaxi for 4.icLa.rds Ccil"
pany and there has been r-ncther salesinan there by the
nsiDe of jiLorowitz. Xhey xiave been selling waste .vhich
they clo.ia came from the Chicago Waste Company and was
stolen froiii tiiere. H^ ^arit tc get Uie gccds on Inia
Richards, ky client has a case against him. I don't
remeoiber the particulars of lae case, i said, * if you
get any inforcjation would you mind calling tue up?' On
tf.onuay a^otnin^ ieldutan ca^ut tc; tim office cf defendant
and said, 'Did you hear any more about this stock being
stolen?' i said, 'We nave a line an it - nothing elae,»
to which he replied, » If you «et auytbing will you call
up Lepine?* (the plaintiff). I said I would."
¥• think in view of this testimony the ds*
fendant should have bean permitted to show that Lepine*8
presence in the case was for the purpose of protecting or
aiding his alleged client, ysldman. If Hofnnuer's testimony
be true then there is soase evidence in the record tending to
show that ?eldinan was the client o5 plaintiff, ana from the ex-
eludod OTidenco and that admitted it might fairly be argued
that Lepine's efforts tc discover and prosecute persons charged
with stealing defendant's property v/ere for the purpose of
aiding Voldman in his controversy with Richards. Believing,
>
bluoAa »9Mblra tiltU iUiltii »v »bmntMimu9 urn to Ho mliii ot
,btiSXaba ts»»4 ttrAd
9tii to •xskol'ito nn «v8/rxel^A fl« to ftn/bttQtt »iLS tiiiw atdd
,i»mf>I»', , Basils aiii jjni^ao^o oqrufq; »jil aol: ftftiwa »'x«v
XXao 1 -ii ^«}4 «/oy II' .t-
■2 \ ./.•.J-
Ji>J wJ ;,i.;l'„^> ..
•teiai i9d itf
• ♦9rtlq9.r :r«flt:r wode oi fcs^^lnrt:*! no«d' 9Y«irf iljuoda i»Abnsl
oi $al6rt»i bioo J oonabiv* «a:Ofc «i irrf^rfi rtwrfi ©xiti srf
beii-^afi 9(? xltl^l Id^lcB ii bo^ilc'^ji ijidi b^m 9ort9blv badiiXo
to saoq'KMq frift «©Ti »•!<»« "^itaq[C?q a ' i tial>a«'Uft aaiilaoja tUlv
.gnXTAlXaS .abtJMlDlH; diiw ^a^ovorttfiiao ajU oJt mud^Xa^ aaJJt»l«
«• «• do, that It imt err«r to exelude this •yidenee, th« Jud|:«
B*nt of the Municipal court will "be rcTersed and the cause
remanded to that court for a new trial.
mvntaxD and hbhanoed.
i /
SB • 8400f
/
/
•<-^._ 9, VliRZ, trad\nc, etc., )
Appellants, )
\ } Akil^JiL 7RCV U\miCU?AL
▼». \ )
\ } COURT OF CHICAGO,
LION n, STT-WABT, \ )
'Appellee. )
V/ 21 II. A. 508
Ml. JUSTICE HOLDOK DEIJVERBD THS OPIRIOH OP TH7? COUKT.
Defendant tocuf-ht In Ciiicago a lactor cycle and
eide car frosi one J, A. Cowlee tind paid him th«refor #150.
The cycle and or were snanufaetured in Chicago by the i;x»
celeior ittotor ^manufacturing Co. Before concluding the
purchase defendant telephoned the manufacturer Inquring as
to cowl 68* title, and was informed that the cycle and oar
were ptild for. It appears that Cowles bought the cycle
and car from plaintiffs in Indianapolis, Indiana, and that
plaintiffs had take^n from Ccwles a conditional sales con-
tract therefor. Plaintiffs demanded the cycle and car from
dcferdarit, who refuned to surrender the same and thereupon
this suit In replevin was brought. On a trial before the
court without a Jury there was a finding and judgment for
defendant.
The conditional sales contract was not recorded
in any pines either in Indiana or Illinois.
Plaintiffs contend that the rights of the par*
ties must be determined by the law of Indiana, and that by
the law of that Stats the contract between plaintiffs and
Cowles was good not only as between thsmselTSS, but as
against third parties.
Under the circumstances of this case we think
that the question of the contract between plaintiff a and
ifl
ij
JCA'ii
6 v> G .i>
»a3 .A . It
ia,. . : loqmtiaXbnl ttt B^ti&aiAiq
aa(iJU'»'T9ii^ (brtd fj»a«8 «ji* inb ant's: 9^b
Cowlea IB not a Matter for our daterxDination in tiiia pro-
coeding. Plaintiffs put ii witiiin tne power of oowlee lo 1
reiaove tno cyole and car out of the litate of Indiana, there-
by yeetintj hi« with priaft facie evidence of ownerahlD and
with apparent power to sell the same tr^e from their claim.
To hold otherwise in the oirotunatancee of this ease would
•top the sale of this kind of peraonal property.
Defendant hnd no more reason to investigate \
Oovles* title in Indiana ttj&n in any other btate. > specially
is this so f^nen tne evidenoe gained loy olefenaact showed that
the cycle and car had iseen jBanufactured in Chicago. Comity
betiveen states does not proceed to such an extreme, Tha 1
following observations by the late Ut, Justice Adans in
fc paenbauc v. ^yw es , 77 111, App. 295, are pertinent here:
♦•«e cannot conclude this opinion* however, with-
out soffle suggestions as tc the rule, apparently supiorted
by numerouH adjudicatit ns, that the constructive notice of
a mortgage resulting fron its acknowledgment and record-
ing in the ritBte in ivhich it in executed, is rIbo con-
structive notice in other states, and to the citizens of
other ijtntes to which the mcrtgaged property may be re-
moved, thus giving to the law of the ^tate in which the
mortgage is executed extra-territorial effect. The
courts base this rule on the doctrine of interstate
comity, bvit it eerrra to us thpt thi» doctrine should not
be extended to the detrinjcnt of citizens of the State.
In many cases the rule that citir.ens of this Gtrte are
bound by constructive notice of a chattel mortgage exe-
cuted and recorded in another :Jtnte, neccBsarily and in-
evitably operates to the detriment of such citizens."
This case was affirmed in 179 111. 112.
In Illinois the possession of personal property
is prima f&oie evidence of ownership, and unless a lien is
reserved in accord with the statutc^s of the ot&te. the
passessor may convey a good title to a bon a fide purchaser,
provided he is without notice of any intervening equities •»
claims. ^ ^^ ,
The Judgment of the Municipal Court is right and
is affirmed,
A7FIR12XD.
7
7
. .-. _, Ti'.ii^ nvT?^ »»tl «a»a end" f/'i<.s ri '/vwar ♦.-.
mi* two')
■dao bXnd ♦!
* £«. f«VO0
•J >t^&..:
to-
baa Jiiv, won X«q:ioir.
,i>!>nn:illA •!
113 . 24032
\
VXSTIRK IROH COMOTRUCTIOB
CO., 8 etfii^poratlon,
Appelle*, /
S. A, 3TKRFn!iI> wad UAfmf
M, STKlUrFBLB,
App
\
AflFJUL UtOM JtUKICIi'AL
COURT Oy CHICAGO.
•''""• * ^1 1 I.A. 509
/
1.
MR, JU3TICX HCttCK DSLIVIRXD THE OPIKION Of THI COURT.
l^laintiff recovered a judgnent for 1176.95
en a trial before the court, and defendant a appeal,
Tht action was for the contract price of 90
angle Irone. The defense interposed was that 'but 39 of the
irons were delivered and that 51 resiained undelivered. Be-
fore trial defendants paid plaintiff for the 39 angle irons
del^lvered, so the controversy is confined to 51 angle irons.
(^uery: Does the evidence support the finding of the trial
Judge that these 51 angle irons were delivered? Se are of
the opinion that it does not.
Th«re is positive evidence that but 39 angle
irons were delivered and there is no evidence supporting the
contention of plaintiff regarding delivery of the 51, Further-
more, plain tiff *s own witness, who is supposed to have delivered
thea, discredits this contention. This witness was the ex-
pressman who carried the angle irons. He testified that he had
but 70 pieces on his wagcn, some of ^ioh he placed near tha
tool chest in front of the building which defendants ^ere
engaged in constructing, and that he would not be sure as to
the number. This falls far short of proof of delivery of 90
pieces. lioreover, as no one for defendants received these
pieces or checked them up, merely putting them In the street
alongside the curb, as testified to by plaintiff ^s expressman,
did not constitute a delivery either express or symbolical.
7
•AliUri fi.-^";a
P
■^"i/ii. •' i.
i;xi
^rlT .«. .* ,i,>,..^.
^U^
'Xiniitu'o . â– 'â– â– =â– â– â– â– ' 'â– ^â– â– - â–
-X» . - ,. V.v,„ .:».,, w..
Off blw.
. . . . _ , ■,:i:. •>■••.-
"too
"♦tq:
Flcintlff a T?itneae, wjr.o testlfiitd that he checked up 9u
fung] « irons th<i> morning following the exprees&an's plftcing
ef what he tLink& «»* 70 yI«o«» Rlong8id« bhe curb, was ctI-
dftntly mlata^tn aa to the nutther. Cn the other hand* th«
testiAony that but Zv of these Irene were found in the
plftce vThere plaintiff hud cfuued its expre-esian tc plAoe the
ircns is? uttocntradicted. A» tc the 51 angle irone plaintiff
haft fail fid to establish delivery, f>nd its olaiaot therefore
faiXft,
The jud£ib«»it of the l^,unicipal Court ie reversed
vlth Jud^ent of p il^ ca;i;>iat aad for coets here ajad below.
KEY£RSi;D WITH JUyU& lOiT Off
yiL CA} I/.T AND ITOK C03TB.
-lv» saw ,<i'i'. -oi;a;^noi« ei'/A-)- ' "? err.? .;.:!{nt.1.+ ?-r5 .J-arfw lo
%A!t «Ofti '■, .■S'Piro'it'v ; ,' 6.. i '• ilinXatq Atfuiat aoA.Cq
163 - 24063
HOBACX D. KXN)I£B'
Aii'iua m(M kmicifM court
0? CHICAGO.
HORTII AVl?^ UK 5.0T0R Wl8
Appellant./ ) ^ 1 1 I.A. C 1
MR. J03T1C38 HOLDOM DKLIV15RKD THE OPIHIOH 0? THK COURT ,
flaintiff had Judi;«ient for $75 on a finding of
the oourt, to whom the cause tme aubmitted by agreement of
the parties » nnd defendant appeala.
This la a small oaso measured by the aaount in-
Tol7ed» but, notwithstanding plaintiff has failed to appear
and defend against the appeal, there is an underlying principle
of honesty ^ich this court must recognise.
Plaintiff purchased a motor truck of defendant,
paying $7S for it. Defendant represented that the truok was
usable and aOTable. It was neither. The contract was in
writing and contained a condition that the truok was "to be
running and In usable condition," It seeias the truek would
not run; that in attempting to start it the engine made much
noise but the truck would not fflcve. When plaintiff demanded
of defendant a return of the $75 which he paid for the truek
he was told that defendant was not interested, that it was
not going to give the money baok and that "they didn't want
the damn thing around,"
There is no pretensa by defendant that the truek
oan be run. It is contended that it was sold for "junk."
HoweTer this may be, it is a sufficient answer to say that
sttoh is not the contract, a due regard for oommon honesty
requires that the Judgment of the Municipal Court be affirmed,
whioh is accordingly done,
ASVlSiLXD,
\
\
1^0 xr;
"^^ i, -I r. ::■:-. ■.'-li-diS: e • .\1 *» t" ; ■» ' .. .
. 1-^*4^ Isn SAW il .ivfc'ov^'-i. I;n3 ;^X;fAiȣr
. ->â– : â– -ra+c. 0.' irf./t ^oa
Ji'sanllla 9cf tfiaoo IniiaiRi. ..»iii»o«C ^viuunt
. â– â– 'â– .J k: â– â– â– ;â– ; fi
182 - 241C3
\
ELAKCHE 0. tAm,\
7RSD£RICK J. UUIX*
Appellant,
\
OP CCQK COUKTY.
1 I.A. 511
lf.B. JU3TIC? H:i.nCJ«« :^RtlV-^RSD I'HB Ol IFION OF THI? COURT,
The parties to this oaus* w«rt awirrled ijecember
24, lti96. The fruit of unis union is one ohiXci, Francis,
wiiout custody is not now involved, as he is at the present
tlae patriotically serving in the arny of iiis coiuitry In
its war with oermany. on October 7, 19lu, complainant
filed her hill for separate maintenance, alleijing xaiaoon*
duot on the part of defendant which has compelled her to
live separate and apart froa him since the 3rd of August, 1906;
that defendant has refused to liTS with his wife, notwith-
standing she has at all times been willing to live with
him.
An order for $50 8olicltor*» fees and a pay-
ment of flO a week for the support of the then infant
child of the marriage was entered on ootober 29, 1910,
The defendiitnt ansfwred complainant' e bill gen-
erally, denying the averments thereof.
It was not until more than eight years after
the bill was filed that the cauee was tried. In the mean-
time the parties have lived separate and apart. l>uring
iooct of the time complainant has had the euatody of their
child, Pranoia.
Complainant charged in her bill that defendant
had been guilty of unkind and crual conduct toward her.
\ ,
•TO
X i ^ •^'» - X
v»<fai»&aa. i}»Iii«ai •f\f •kjjsd visit 9i ssiliaq sd'i:
.jxij JXjb :?^ fcjBt..
-•■■•■r; (-.• . ■TO soo''^ j,'-.^- . ■: [:r-_ , .;.; 7 : . -r-i^t'-to it - .
-ti»©a». 'â– <•'â–
'â– MlXUf.. ;ijj^ a?:..:,-: D'-.:
which she auppcrtod by proof, ahe alac tcBtlfitd that d«*
fenOJuit had becoae enauourcd cf another nciuRn end so told
hor» and euiu thai Im^ cculd net continue tc live vitxi her
as hi 8 vdfe. Def aridnnt left eoaxplfln&nt , cut off ti^r «o»
count at the grocery, aeat mnrlret and other atoret, shut
off the gas and electric llgiht In their «partin«it and re-
fused tc pay rcrit therefor, nnd reti.oTed hiweelf therefrom,
Thttre w&s alec testiuicny regarding his consorting witb
ether wctfien, sufficient tc raise a weJl f^rounded inference
of ioibcrftlity,
We think the evidence is such thfkt the ehan*
ocllcr ad£;ht re^uijonuhly find, e-t he did, that complainant
was livinfe ecpcrate and ajhrt froc defendrnt without her
fcul t .
Defendant is inccnaietent in his defen»e8, Bt
was principal in v, public schceX and coarlr in£>nt waa a
tcRchrr in a pu);lic Kchocl, Hot with a tending t>ie fact that
he received ^8C5C cf her earr.inea as a school teacher, yet
he clftiiEG thftt he proteoted against hie wife' a teaching
eehocl hecause he wanted her at hoioe to look after the hoata
ae a iaattcr of dcmcatic economy and good housakeeplng. In
the liRht of thee* facte hit contention* cannot be taken rery
eeriously. Then again, defendant reaista the decree for tha
allcwnnoe of separate maintenance on the ground that
ant is self-supporting as a achocl teaciier. At the
trial it was established that defendant was principal of tha
£d«rard Jenner aehooX and teacher in s night school and that
therefrom he twis in receipt of an ainu^T. incciae of 1^4100; that
aomplainant's salary as a school teacher was ^I5&C; that at
the tiffle of the trial her health was in a precarious condi-
^
^aken rery
> for tha I
; ooBplaln- "^
time of th![e
H} i>-} y ^ ' :-:r. <;â– > >
■f rfl« s
-ifcrfoo awoJtt.«oeT
tion* her physician testifying that she needed to go to a
hospital to undergo a aurgioal operation; and that her
health vas impaired at the tixse of the trial to Buoh an ex«
tent that she would not he able to work or teach for some
time. The court made complainant an allowance of $6b a month
together with $3oo necessary exi^enaes oi' sax operation, hospi*
tal expenses, doctor's fees, stc., which amount was the esti-
mate of cost mftde hy the medioal witness, and also an allow*
anes of 9?.00 for solicitor's fees. The uolicitor^s fcos
allowed are. It is conoedad, reasonable and no complaint re-
garding the sane is made on this appeal.
There is no sTidenoe in the record in denial of
complainant's alleged phyaioai condition and neoesaitiss as
testified to by herself and awr medical adviser. l^efendant, \
however, complains that the nature of her ailiaent io not made
sufficiently specific or certain by the proofs. Aip*ever thlsj
nay be, we are of the opinion that tne medical witness's
statement that her physical condition is such that she must
undergo a surgical operation, that she is in a nervous oond-
tion end will not be able to work for some time, that th«
operation will lay her up for from four to six weeks, and the
further fact, under. ied, that ahe has no nooumulation of money
or property with which tc eupTC^t h«reelf during her illness
end oonvnlesoencs, was sufficient to w&rrant the chancellor
la making an allowance of $6b a month. It was proper also
to allow |SCO a« » n«oe»aary exj^ense of the ?5urgioiril eperatioa Vy
which i^ wt!.B eBt»bliyhed by the evidence plaintiff must undergo,
The eamlnga and income of defendant warranted
these allowances. If the condition cf ocifiplainarit and th9
financial circumstances of defendant should materially change
in the future, it will be proper for the chanoollor, on appll»l
>
'iittiiiiaXqmoo
£ntiyi$99S
«ri^ ji%.., . tow oi »Xc(« ftrf ^<ir! -oii
an./ b.-?« ♦■iA,d i.c- ■' !jtr.t«<jo
Hiiii â– â– id â– 'OLn.tAVixcii iina
cation tc hiiu, to veur^' th« allowanott wuioli dtfendant is or-
ciered to pay 10 laucu mluu ua iua;y be warranted by such altered
financial ccnuitlcn,
ihere i» no «»rror in j^rooodure ditcoverable froa
the record wliich warrant* a r«ver»al of the decree of the
Supt^rior Court, anu it is therefore afflrcied,
APPIFiiED.
moT.
£24 - 24140
CO.* a oorporatioifu
Appellee,
rn,
E. P. T. CH/KULBR andV^. L.
LIKDGREK. \
kR. JU^TICH HCLDC14 PEJ.
'^APFV'AL THOU VUHICIPAL
211 I.A. 513
THK OPimOK OF THE COUPT,
Tiiert 'waa Judf^ent in the triftl court for $155
T>y conleitsion under a power of attorney contained in a lea**
under aeal betweeii the parties tc certain presiiaes In Chicago.
I}efendante faoved tc vacate this judgra(<^ct, trhioh
motion they aupported toy affidavits, but the motion trae de-
nied Mnd txiie appeal from that order prnynd and perfected.
?)efendant8 sought to ^vold their liability open
two grounds: yirst, that the liability -sas tiiat of » cor-
pcratlon, th^ aeourity Tocl Vorka, of thich defendants were I
officers; and, seocnd, that ^y a parol a|!;reeisent the lease '
a^id poas^saicn of the der..i8ed prer&isea wore surrendered.
The affidavits suboiitted presented no raeritoriout ^
defense. The fact, if it ia a fact, that the security Tool
Works occupied the prealses deotiaed and paid the rent accruing
during the tiae of such occupBtion in no way affected ths lease
bet;f7een the parties. The obligations of the parties under ths
lease rstaained unimpaired, notwithstanding the faet may be as
allegp*.
The lease osuld not be terminated contrary to its
covenants by parol. ILven concedin$^ tne facte to be as stated
in the affidavits supporting the motion, there was no legal
surrender of possession of the demised premise* and scceptano*
thereof by plaintiff.
>
\
\
«»XI^ - »^^
.* arjiwM
■iJ' 1 ylAt. !?;.•
|> i G .il i &
. 8
9 •MP I
«fcr»Tt<MI
.- . :.tt»11U% t1:\. «_-A . ., -. .
»6»«X •ill ijataftllB vm,
, bail Ba^il till b'lniucjCT IHOMI
,.iJ^5j)i^o, . : -raq yd •;rn«ti0TCO
•ooAiciftoo* boa •••imB'xq A^elAtb sili 'k* aol«t*««oq lo tftttavziv*
.ItLtniJiIo vd" ^omx^di
Jbsisii: «r «d 9^ «^?>r
The rule at 1mm in limt a nattlea. execu-^ory con- 1 -^
tract eturti.(>t ii« ul^nifed, altered or i»o<iiriea by parol. iS€ok9Ti
▼ . ;3e>o'I"^^y . 25C I'll. II?; ;aacj:>al®r V, vjOUiff, 164 ibid 2y6,
TMa i3 the riO $> cf liie c.acaon law which jprftvaili, in thiu
jurindiation, v^hapuox v. ^jcrr?^ . T. "i, i;:!; Gc;:(iebv..t'oi^ai
T. r-tiblP , 14r' ibid ^;j5C .
"/e cn.fro* aay th^t the triAl Juu^t i/i {ifor.^-,»-ig
tho jEiotion to v.->cnt«' the Juil«,ir.cftt &<.bubeci tii« dii8or«t.ion
whic.a i.hc law rojoaod ir: hln, thars tc-ing no facto stated
In the cSfi6M.-7i.Xti aup::^ort:.jit the motion w-ioii ci nctituted i~ny
defcr.tiCi upon t»i« a&rits,
•"he ^udf^Ber.t of tVie kunicli?*-] cruri io eT«
flrn^d.
>
* '»'« ^
T '.iBS .
a: n V;;-'\'V::
t: I cif
tif ^^j'tod&olp'') ,
â– ^'\ i^'Jl-ii Ti ' - .k 9'^ - .
A^ .r
â– a
â– V! ffoxjoa 9aJ
.b?«nrxi:l
251 - 24166
JAlfJS 7. BZSHOP.\ AdainiBtrator
af the Estate of \^Jamea Rove,
AaaaAtad,
lAppellant,
ROSI H. ROffl,
AillSAL JTROk iJUl'EHlOR
COURT OF COOK COUHTY.
pall
Sll I,A. 514
im, JU3T1CK HOLDOH DEI>IVEmSD THE OPIKIOH 0? THK COURT,
Tha bill In this eaaa sacks to reoovar from
dafanOant eartaio personal property which it is averred