thfit it inforaed apooll^ e that it would caake tiiie round trip
in »ib out three days.
The oppeD^nt began ucin^ the teem of horeee about
the twenty-fifth of J\)ly, nnd continued tc use it for about
two weeke, and until the fift}Ld.ny ol August, nt which tine
one of the* horoes diod «hil« on a return trip Iroiu Gaaey*
The weather wns very wftraa snd it in cl >.iiaed by apnellant that
the horee died f r la the exceosive heat. The appellee in£*iets,
»n«* «ie evl^crce tend© to ^hcnr, th^t fnr t-o nr three dsy«
belore it died tJie norgc w;ie not 'fltll, and during thie time
lagged in .io wnrk, and did not eat hie feed; and that appel-
-1-
l<int*« driver, who wnis irunk T^rch, fitter diseoverine; th%t
th« horse vns Ineel^is in ^'>i> work nnd not entiriij; hio fe«d
nee,Ieeted to give the horo« the proper r.ttcntlcn, but oyn"
tinued to vork hlr., nnd vihlle it appearj? thf^t th^ work Wftt
not )iettv>, yet the hcst wss oxce»eiv« and one of nripeXlant'e
Tiitneiff'piT, r, Hidpeway a veterlnory purgeon, upon erote*
exfl»inntion ptated th-^t If the horee had received proper
treetment on iriday r.it,ht th^t he v?o uld nf>t hnvc hod trie at-
tack .
This c«pe itA9 brfiUfcht "before a Juftice of tJne leace,
and appealed to the circuit Court of CraY.'ford County inJher*
» trlftl b> jury vne waived Rnd the cauee tried by tlse Court,
and Judfcssent rendered for the appellee for "^o Kundred
i^ollare find copts.
The triefe r.nd arguiaents filed by the parties in thief
ease ate quit« exteneive but as ve think the princlpnl cmeetion
Bade f>n!& dlscus^vrd in the c??ee i? :ne cf f '-^c t r to vrhether
or '.ot the appellant ns Ijsilee uBcd ortMn^ry c« re for the
home. Counsel lor r pel3»mt '^.nd ji^pcllee »{ ree substantM.ly
upon the lo* controlling CfBeee of this chnr^'Cter, that is,
that s> tni3<=e for hire if bnund to t.^e c rd in nry care in the
preservation of tue property f^n«i euch cmre ae nn ordinary / "^
prudent ssan would beetow upon hie ov^n property, and ve think[
that this is* the correct rule «nc ip \ ell sustained by the
autltioritiea.
It is further c-tntended by the appellee th«tt when
it wr»» shown thit apfiellant received ttie horee in good condi-
tion thr>t it ic ^ia duty to return the r orse in the SRme con-
dition to appellee or !».■ov sorae legal exouee, or in other
words, show ths t he had not been guilty of neglig,ence in
coring for the horpe, nnd this doctrine is rir^ctically oon-
XA<:riy'.
ceded \jy the appellant who »aye in lit lyrief: ''The raere fnot
alone that there ie no evidence of ne^^ll^ence on tji^e part of
tjtie R{)pell)ant will not relieve it from liability because tVie
law placee the burden of sLowin^ th»t it ^a.^ not negligent
upon p. pellant when a prima facie case ie m^ce out agminnt
the api^ellant. " riut it i» contended by the apx>ellnnt that
there le abundant evidence to ^ihow theit it ut^ed due or' re for
thii? horee R.t tiife tirie in qu<. otion, and the tcptlmony amec-
iallj relied ur>on in tr.ae p»rticul^r ip thf>t of Irank .riuroh
«ho vinn the man thst drove the horer in queetion during all
of the time th«t appellant hnd the team, and wwp driving hl«i
upon the day th-nt he died, wi^io testified th^t he drove him
C}<ref uil iy and c«utiou«?ly» and drove hins in ?•) ^f»lV, and watered
I
them frequently, and th-it he taw nothinf s'lt^ng, with the horei^
until noon of the A^y tlint he died, nnd th»t uf eirjon ne he
discovered that ..e wms sick he called the verterinary Dr.
Rld^ewey, who treottd the uoree, but in srsite of the treat-
aent and in a short time after the vettrin^sry w)? called, the
horee died*
it ia insisted by counsel tor afp^H'^"^ th».t the ,
evidence of Burch ie sui'licient and the only cacsjjetent evi-
dence to phow that the horee Wft» properly treated and cnred
for cii^ring the time th»t ?'urch wne driving hie, and it ie
clfiiwed that thie ip not c^ntr'»dicted "by any c^mr-ctent evi*
dence nnd ttet the Court erred in nfteittin^' ae appellant
clairae neolnrf^tions! of -urch Jupt before and at the tirae the
hor?-© died e» to the manner in which the horec had been 1
trented* The appellant in ite ahetrrjct fnilcd to preeerve
any olajectione to the ruling. pof tlie court upon the enmpetenoy
cr materiality of the teetl^iony th-t ie no^n cf>mpl?.in©d of.
If one depiree to t;o»it,n as error the adciiosion of evidence /
.3.
&
mill yiivATi
,rtll#Xr
:nm *d^
then such should te 'pT%»*xs%d in th« nbstrnct but the <^bfltr<j;et
In this oaei« neither dlselovev ocjtotlone or •xoertlontto
th« evidenco, and thie ie necvss&ry before It onn be oon- '
Bldered \»y this Court. Korth M9, Zerwick, 97 ril.App,306: 1
Uibler v». City of feattocn, l«i7 111 22. '
After a careful examlnatloh of thie record we are
of the opinion that appellftot'c contenti-on "© to the ndmi edi-
bility of thie teptinony ie not ';?eli tsiV. en even if it bnd been
preeerved in the afcetmct in proper form.
The record dipcloece that upon the croee^esuiiaination
of the vit«ei?e Irank urci., he was neked if he h.nd not etnted
to iyerg nnd other parties named thnt the uoree vns off of
hie feed and hnd been drsi^^ng for two or D^ree daye; that h«
ate all of hie feed during Friday night, but Cv' turd ay morning
and Sf turdny ronn he did not e^^t nny of his feed, to which ,
t
tl-i* 'ifltneec anrwrered "no". And a .jueetion mbPt'^ntiel ly tht j
1
B«Re we put to the witnese ne to r converention thmt he had j
i
with T/Bniicl:, r;r. Hidgcwny and iyer?, to which the witneee
Rnewered "Ko". Af tt r thip wltnere had thue answered theee
quei^tione upon cioee-cxasiin.ition, counsel or apncllajit in re-
direct exaijJination ssked the witneee to give the conversation
that he hrtd Viith theee p rtiee, which ho proceeded to do, and
later on the Court permitted witneaeep to tt Btify to the par- |
tieui rr et«t.emento th:-it the witneee burch hud been inquired [
of f^nd denied.
Jf, when Purch aneiitred that he ba<^ hnri no euch con-
ver cations, the ei^itter h- d not been ti^ken ujj by couneel for
Hppellrmt n-nd the ccnvereotion toroufexit out by hin, then v
believe th'?t the Court would not h- ve permitted theee witneetee
to testify to tJ-ie p rticulnr conveveation ae it nnpenre that
in the examinw tian of Doctor iidgewey the appellee nought to
-4-
V
bring out a conversation between hlia and the «t:.ent i^uroh,
but the Court held th<:$^t h« was not entitled to that converss*
tion r?,p it wnB not given in the line of hip duty, inter on
in nie crose-exanlnBtion I'octor hidgeway testified thnt if
the horee bod received ; roper treatcient on ridry nieM J^«
iBoulri not h^ vc had thnt nttwck; and furtJker »tot©8 that tiie
horee had uot received the proT>er treatment for n dny or tvo.
ift>*i5e there wr>e porr.e lrreta«lf?rity in the admlBSion
of these contradictory ?tnt«aente» yet rlter the oonvers*^tion
bf'tween tiie altneset:© : urch and fAyers Y.hiI Lten brought out by
counsel ior ufpellant, v<& certttinly think it m-t then coiapa-
tent to siow thfit the witnese ->urch hrtd taif. e contradictory
statement t-> in the way of impeachi&ent .
Ve cannot ^ree with couDe**! for appellant in the
cojiclui«ion arrived s-t, that theee etatemente or decinratione
of jBuroh were admitted in evidence pp part of rag geetae, but
were adjaitted &e rontr-5idictions of the «itne?B Burch, and in
the view we take of it, it is not neci n?f>ry to detcnaine vhfh-
ther such wrp n nnrt oi tbe re." 4,<ff.'tae or unt. It i? Ineleted
by councel for n reDnnt thnt the j oree :ied Iro!?. naturnl
caueee and thorefor« there could be :o lin\>ility. ""he rule of
laiB conceded by ap-pel'irmt is, that the burden of ehowing
thnt the horse did not die<^ ns a rep^lt of the negligence of
arpell^nt'e ??ei'vant, and the further fftct tiiat the only teeti-
asony whereby «ppeil«nt aout^t to relit'yc' iteeif of liability
under tnie riile pnd to ff:jow due cnre v'le over-wnelnin^ly oon-
tr dieted, ana we cannot br^ ti»'^t U.e Court wi!,- not vj&rr?^nt«d
in findintj that tiie /lorise died for waflt of sue or rep.pon??ble
o«re upon the x/'trt of tx»e a v:ellant*0 serve;. t, and the judg-
Kent of tlie lo'wer Court ip nf finned,
Kot to b(!i reported in full,
.5.
t O C» S' r'
tftXC^
/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copy of the OPINION of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in mi) office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set rnvjia^ and affixed the seal of ,
at ML Vernm, this .^^- l^^^^^J. dag'efZ-^.
A. D. 19lK..
Court
^:^:jL!^^cd
Appellate Court.
/
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, the same
being the 26th day of March in the gear of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.
Present:
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Presiding Justice
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk.
211 I.A. 161
THOMAS E. PASLEW Sheriff.
And afterwards, in vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the si:^enth day of July
A. D. 1918, there, was filed in the-office of the Clerk of said Court, at ML Vernon, ffinois, an OPINION
in the words andJigures following:
T., J* .O-'-fiarafetal., Trustees, in.
..?AOJ?i^p t P.y ii.....e.!wP..«. J
Plaintiffs in Error
ERROR TO
No 10.
March Term, 1918.
.Jplui..,Camjpbellj
Defendant in Error
Circif.it COURT
Valine COUNTY
TRIAL JUDGE
HON A?....y:«....I^.^S
t%m «•• 10. AgtBte Ko.ft.
MMTOh Tem, A. h, 1918.
]3«f«nd«nt In ) rror, )
Y. } itrror to Ualin*.
)
T.J*0»G«rft, et al, TrufiMt ill )
)
Mnkruptoy, «ie., )
FlAintillv JLn i^rror. }
Opinion b/ Kigl}«e, ^*
-*«000««>i
This suit «»« brought by John Cvapboll «Kftin«t
T. J. *U{ira, ^«iilIi««L la black mv^ ^, ^«ltia«n, a* truvtcet
la Bankruptoy Icr t/ie ' *Gara (-oal Company, a aorporation,
to reaovar for paraonal injurioo suatalned by hin «hila
working for oaid Qcmptioy in iha wine known a« tha u*Oara
Coal tooqiany, mint lio. 10.
0« Bareh 11, 1916, tha plaintiff and hio IniAAy,
TMagr St«««rt, v^rm working in tha third and fourth north
antria* off of tha fifth wsat antzy of 9aid nln«, their
workir^ T>l^ca« baini^ at the face of the ooal in said antriet,
Tbato antriao had been driven in n di«tainea of about fif-
taoB hundred feet and 90T9 aonneatad by tha eroes*cute.
Under t>ie law ereee>-outt are required ta ba driven every
eixty l€!et in order that tha air nay properly cireulatt
throufiih the entries, nnd as tha work advaneas it it also
required that eaoh flrot!!«-eut except tha one nearest tha
faea, to te cluset Ith -ubrtjmtlal nt-atcrlsl '"nd r^nfUe r»
nearly air ti^Jbt sa > 8*sible* On the day in question tha
-1-
-■•al'tfj
<
.1 ,»«o
•aiif nCI <
,v.i;>.'»uu -i - f bam llltn.: iloiukii «
i «9f»flMvJM TttK;
'.^ : limmtp ttl V.
mix trKveXvtf down th« third an<3 enmfl bnok on the fourth
north «ntr3r« v;^«n all the ero«r out* ««r« properly closed
•xe^^t tho one nenroet tho ftteo, the nlr that went through
the entzy would b«$ toreed doim to t* ie croee out euad vould
there crove over to the next entxy. Thle would enable
eaoui;h :freeh Kir to tr-vel down the entry peet the laet oroet^
cut and to the faee of the coal to dlepeX any get that
Alkiht aocuBul@te at Uie tae9* The third north entxy had
)»«en driven farther than the fourth «md a erooe' out had
bean atarted iT(m the t/tlrd entxy toward the fourth «t a
point i!*eventy one feet frota the ItssX open oroe? cut. The
evldeaoe ehov« that this point was the cxtAia dlptanee to
which iim air would properly elreulate from the laet
o;>ea eroe9 out, and that the eeeond oroee cut from the f»ee
ol the coal wa« eloeed with a oanwao curtain*
The plaintiff and hie "buddy went to vork «b«ut
•evm o'clock !• v.* on i;'arch ir. Alter worklne a 1*1 ile In
tibe third «^ntry Utey vent into th« fourth about ten o*elo<ik
} .»., loaded 9lx (yr oeven onre of coal and under out the
coal In that entxy to a dlgtnnoe of (»'Out five feet, after
whleh th4i^ bored two h^ilea, one ne^^t to c^oh rib of the
entxy preparatory to piecing the ehote. 7he»e holes were
about eight inch«:^ Ircw the roof and were driven eone four
and one half ieet into the laee of the coal. It was the
euet<m In nreparlng tho holes lor shooting, to put in a tube
of powder about ei4(hteen inches long and one and one half
inehet in dlaneter* wrapped In pafper to protect It froo the
nolsture. This tube would be pushed into the hole, clay
dMnkles Inserted and a fuse attached extending out about
three feet. On this oocnslon after the powder had been la
sorted in the hole*'. It beeane neeeifsary for the buddy of
V!
^itf daliv
plaintiff t« go lor mor« duomlta* Ke «»• i^ont ii)>out t«n
minutes. AliMvt lMB«4lRtttXy upon tti* return an ttxploaion
occurred \^ %tiitlh ttom plaintiff vaa Mvarely injured.
It was tha contention ^f t>ie ^.laintiff that the
curtain over tiut second crate eut froB the face of the eeal
vae torn, «^ioh oauied the air to be ehort eireuited end
that enough air did not re^nch the ftiee of tlxe coal to drire
avay the gan/^ vdr^ioh had Ueen releaeed tejjr uoidereuttiag the
eoal and boring the h^lee; that «i:ien : ie buddy returned the
gae vhieh had time aoeu«ul»ted near the roof of the entxy
hj reaeen of the failure of the air to circulate at the
face wae ignited Ibj the laaip vhioh he wore on hie eamp and
that thie caused the gae to Isum or explode; that plaintiff
and hie l»uddy threw themacl-vee to the erovind and the ex-
T'lotion paeeed ever then. Plaintiff stated that trhea he
raieed hie head he »aw that tie ;>ap6r eround the poivder and
luee in one of the holee vae ouming and that t^^ere would bd
•a inetant ejrpleeion unleee thie fire eould be extinguished
wt^iieh he attenjjted to do by graeping it with )ii«> hand but
that he was too late ajnd r&ceived the i\i3.1 foree of the
blast in hie f^ce and che^t. i^efeadtint contended that pliis-
tiff and his buddy used different else l>ite in boring the
holes, that the cartridge beoame oau^it in t>:« ri^ht hand
hole and the plaintiff struck it vith a steel teasper ndiieh
caused it to explode.
The deolar-^tion contifted of «ly cnunts. The first ,
count charted that the entzy had been driTen more than sixty I
feet beyond the Itist open cross cut; that ^sy reason thereof '
the air did not travel to the face, and the gas accumulated
â– ad caused tlie explosion. The second count charged the
failure to maJril the daageroits condition, consisting of an
.5-
^0
f>f9^tf X'
t«
iMOunulAtlon of fi,At. Th« ttiird count ehnr^cd a fallur* to
mak9 A r«ttord ot th« dMtgsrout eonditiont. The fourth wmn
• •0aan«n late count, chnrgln^; a failure to e^xeroiea raa»on«
able oara to luxnieh tba plaintiff a raatonably vafa plaaa
In itkioh to work. Th« fifth count ehnr^ad a failure to
olosa tha l»vt fiva open crotfl) cute and make eubvtantial
etepplnge, and ti^ie sixth a failure to cloee the creee eute
next to the last fST.ttn eroow cut vith Buh^tantlal <»tO'; riUfi^e
and the uee of eanva^ ourtalnct for that purpose which had
holee in them. To aii theee eounte the defend?%nta filed a
plea of ifeneral isoue. Ihe Oi>a- uraa tried before a jury
•Bdi a verdict returned for nine thousand dollnra for triileh
4tidciaent wac> reader ed in favor of plaintiff and a^ainat the
dafeadmta to be >>ald in due eouree of adt&lnletrrttlon.
Befcndante helour have brou^f^ht the record here tor review
by writ of error.
no ooBoplalnt Jp sj?i> t; thfit ti;« triril court com-
mitted aaiy error in Ite rulings on Uie evidence nr in the
giving or refu9lne of ini«trnctione or that the verdict le ^ ''^
esceeelve. Hence the only question to be ooneidered by
thla court and the only one dlecueaed by counsel ie whether
the fncte in proof oonctltute a eauee of ftctinn, T)efondaat
In error and hie ^>uddy, 'lomey f.'tevrart teetified that they
bad been troubled with ^aa in theee X^m entriee all the
tine, nore or lee?, Stewart further tcetlfled that the
air did not circulate at the face of the coal and there
were no danger BUirke around the curtain nor "^vt the faoe of
the coal; aleo that about cldnlght he burned out t>ie gae in
thie entry* Between that tisie and St 45 A.l<^, when the
explosion occurred, the mine examiner ae he states, ex*
attined this entry Rr.& found no ttae but he had with hi» no
•4-
X^JiiS "iliU L^^^ViV^j^
a
«i«HMIt«r «i^imit trhloh h« •%•%•< h« Ofluld not dstemla*
the amount of air at the tr>09 of th« coal, 'rhl;) eyAsiner
furt>i«r tt'^stlfled thRt he knew t>ii» ftttry nt difforent
tiaie* had 9m(Bm eaa; Hatkt if the air did not circulate at
tlie faee of the coal liien gae wae generntir^ it i^culd ac-
eutfiulate there; ih'f.t ti'ie undercutting of the coeX and the
boring ef the h^lee vould liberate the £r«f if there wae
any in that pprticuX^r ve^lon^ arid th^^t the xjunderoutting had
not Ireen done nor the hole* bored at the time he wae in
thet^e entries, he furth&r testified that he hAd noticed a j
hole in ttie curtain in the tfeonnd croer cut; thnt the hola
extended the full length of the ourtsln, thnt the curtain
in that eondition for two or three fiomlnge before that tl
that he knew r> hole of that kind in th»t pl»oe wotld short
eircuit idc the air and prevent the proper suaount of air
circulating «t the fsce of the coal and the>t he told the
sine manager of tMe condition either nne ^r Um dwye be-
fore the accident. The exaaDiner gave hie reason for not
narking thie curtain ae unenfe that **the only thing ve auurlt
on ie «dic>re thore lea bad roof in a ; lace or gas*** Other
vltneeeeF testified ae lo the iiole nr tear in thie curtain
and Muare «.ppt;«Lre to be no doubt that euch condition had
existed for several dnye. This was elearlj such a dan-
gerous condition as under tirie statute should hAve been
marked by the examiner. The Bupreifte Court in the case of
lieagelkamv v. Coosolidnted ^oal Co.,2&9 :il.3C&, enid, "'hm
have held thi^t the words *any dangeroue condition^ in the
9JM mining aot apply to dangerous conditions in the track*
the road bed or t}ie sides nf the entxy, and thnt they in-
clude any dsoigeroue condition which may exist in the coal
mine which endanger the life, limb or health of »en vorking
in the mine, whethi^r euoh conditl'^n- -^re of a peraanent
«hB.r»ct«r due to faulty eonw true tion or of a tmw^rmtf
chArnotttr due to opfcrAtlon**. '^o tht »«m effect art tb«
•«••• at u^ttttnt V. -Southern ^^oal Co.,SS5 111,640 and
SuallAm V, f>laok ;>i«iBond Coal ^o.«23W 1I1,4&7.
on toidiRlf of pXaintllfe In error, e wltn«a«,
iu-e/era testified h« «»■pr««ent in th« inurtJ^i entxy at th«
tlat of tlie idcoident %nd th&t tho explosion vne oau»«d by
dafead nt In «3^ror 9%Tikin^ the cartridge with tha i>i<t«eX
Jm6 of a ta&iper »nc! th« fnot that thi« vitnasa's hair and
ayebro«« aera at^iinged tande to prova Uhii iut vac in t)r>« naar
vicinity at tha tlua of tha axploalon. «^ theothar hand tvo
witnesftet tectifiad ^ayer» 9ald in thair ' reeenaa that at
tha time the ^eoident happened ha wap back in a cnr aeXeep
and Uu^.t ha did not know nov it oeourrad. It i* not ola&r
fyoa the 7; roof ^j ether t\ie car rof erred to vaa in the fir at
or aacond crocs cut. If In th« fir!5t crnnv cut it w««» about
seventy feet froa tlka place af tha explosion or if in tha
aaoond croas cut about one itundr^d and tMrty f«et. I>oth
defendant in error and wtavart denied th'^t teyere «ae in
the entry at tlie time of the explot^ion. Tha teetimoiny of
lAayera is waaKaned eoaaahat by proof that it v^a nearly
two hour* Ritex the accident before he brougiht help to
plaint! 11 in error end ^tevart.
It was ti'ie province of t.)»e jury to dett-rmin* tha
credibility of tha %itnearee and we ore riot dit^noaed to | y"
<|ue»tion the conclusion reached by thmn. Ae tha facts
supported the ve^rdict of the jury and no other question is
presented for our deters2in«!ttion, tha Judigment of the trial
aaurt will be affinaad.
Aff iriaea.
Bot to be rcnjnrtcd In lull.
N&s
/, CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, within and for the Fourth District of
the State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true copi} of the OPINION of the
said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause of record in my office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have set
at ML Veri}on, this
A. D. 191
hand/and affixed the seal of said Court
zrnoti,
I
et nw nand/a
o
' ' â– )
Opinion of the Appellate Court
AT AN APPELLATE COURT, Begun and held at ML Vernon, Illinois, on the Fourth Tuesday
in the month of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, the same
being the 26th day of March in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen.
Present:
Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Presiding Justice
Hon. Harry Higbee, Justice.
Hon. James C. McBride, Justice.
\ CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Clerk.
\
211I.A. 169
THOMAS E. PASLEY, Sheriff.
And afterwards, in vacation, after said March term, to-wit: On the sixteenth day of July
A. D. 1918, there was filed in the office of the Clerk of said C§urt, at Mt. Vernon, Illinois, an OPINION
in the words and figures following:
\
The. farmers. Ha t.t-Qnal.B.anlc..Q.f.
Allendale, Ml^eJ^dant ...i.^....?.?!?.9.?^
No 24
March Term, 1918.
Melchoir Leipold et al, \^/
Plaintiffs in Error
ERROR TO
Circuit COURT
..l?'[at)as]^. COUNTY
TRIAL JUDGE
HON J.....C.....EAG11TPN
Term Bo. 24. Agenda No. 17,
karcii Term, A. D. 1918.
The Farmer e National '^anlc of )
)
Allendale, )
ijefendant in ^rror )
V. ; iiirror to 'i-abash.
laelchoir leipold, et al,
Plaintiffs in i.rror.
Opinion "by Higbee, J.
- -oCo — -
This wae an action of aspumpeit in the circuit
court of "Wabash county to the Ilovenl er tcnr ,A.I;.1915, in
which The yarmers National -ianlc of Allendale "'ns plaintiff,
and George 3. Clarice and Felcheir Leipold vjere defendants.
The declaration was as follows: "The larraers
national Bank of Allendale, a corporation by ilclb and '-hite,
its attorneys, complains <->f i elchoir leipold and George 2.
Clarke, defendants of a plea of trespass on the cases on
promisee;
For that â–¼.'hereae the s^id defendant, I-elchoir
Leipold, on the 28 fh day of Tehruary, 1914, in tJie county
aforeeaid, made his proraiesory note and delivered the same
ti SBid defendant George S. Clarke, and thereby then and
there promised to nay four months after dntf. thereof, to the
order of t}ie said Georr.e G. Clarice at the American l^ationnl
Bank in Fount Camel, lllinoir, the sum of tv;o thousand
dollars ($2,000^., for value received, with interest on the
88 i(? ?ur., froT*; fhp d*^** -^f •♦•^^ mi>^ ♦"^ + e, "+ t^* r^tp of
seven per cent per annum; and the said George S. Clarke
-1.
( to Wilis' Lp.no Li r-7. q-xshtxaV 9rtT
V
(
tilJnJieilH.
oOo
i i ■' ^ •* "
- vvr riol SB SfiW .... - '^'
cogioo R .•%''«^r»l£A ^o UnnE i .:. _
— lioifaX'... - ,;ij:3lcticco ,3xomr' ': ■■■- 1
>? r^.-T-"- ^fl 7,-. -% ^ r r P "^r ».+ it r.fi .-.'<*.''. j ^^ ..,...•
'ii' ■'■'^ - , 1' - . ^. • ■••l.'^. , _ 3BS-i9ri'* .,.-., .
erfj <l# ">r,r.-. - >â– <? - - .-^.â– f "Tjjol ,^-
-tOnOjt.. ,. - -^ -r^c.
iJf - -^ ^- â– â– â– ... ,
thereux)on then and there, to wit, at the time ejrxd place first
aforesaid, assigned the eaid note, by indoreement thereon
under liis hand, to tlie said plaintiff; by rnenne whereof the
defendants then and there became li-rrOe to lay the T)l8.intiff
the amount of the eaid ;iote, according to the tenor and ef-
fect thereof; and being eo liable the defendajitp, in cnneider-
ation thereof, then and there promieed the plaintilf to pay
it the g-sid araount, accordintj to the tenor and effect of
the said note.
Yet, although the day of payTiient in the eaid note