Illinois Appellate Court.

Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.280) online

. (page 53 of 54)
Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.280) → online text (page 53 of 54)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

securities payable to order ana not indorsed by the payee, or if
indorsed specially, not iiidorscd by the special iixdorste, is xiot
alone evidence of title, either leg? 1 or equitable, in the
poiises3or, but the burden of proiBf is on the possessor to prove
his equitable litle by showing a delivei-y to hia with tiiC intent
to pass title", "e find tliat the evidence in this ca^e is amply
s.iificient to prove tuit tiiis note wi s deliverea to plaintili
with the intent .. o pacs title.

Defendant's contention that plaintiff's claia
should iiave been liled af^aiiiSt the eata'-e of i-dward 1. Kebhen
is without i.ierit. In Waughop v. Eartlett, lo5 111. 124, 129,
the court said, ' The riffat of action of the mortgage^ or legal

Terra IIo. 6 Agenda. :;o. 9

holder of t. noie is inceperiuent wl the remedy ^ivcn hiiu b,,
filing hie elaia in the probf tc court, ana a failarc to so prt-
seb4 hio claiu in the prat£.te coui-t within two ^ ears will not
of itself, bar a rit-:ht of foreclosure of a note aortga^-e
not otherv.ise "barrea. ,:ach a proce>-uing is a..t one af^ainst an
estate nor ia it one in personam. It is in the nat a e of a
proceeaing in rem to endorce ceita.n sec ^rit^, specially set
apart for the inaemnity of the holder of the note. In Karnes v.
Harper, 48 111. 527, it is siid (p.52y): "In a proceeding to
foreclose a mortgage in chancery tiie decree ascertains the a.^
due anu orders the sale of the specific property for its satis-
faction. It I'j. in the nature of a deei-ec in i^em".

To sustain uef endaJit 's contentions would be to
relieve her frou tlie ca..sed b^ the aefalcations of her
agent, Ruediger, rnd east tihera upon ^he plr. ii.tiff. Jnder tx.e
evidence in this ca^e, that woxild be xuajust and ine quite. tie.
If, for no other reason, the uecree in this cast should be
sustained xnidex* '..he applies. tion of the equitable rule that
where one of two persons u^ist sutler for the i cts of a third,
he who .u de it possible for such loss to occur aiust stt.iid t;ie
jfeonsequences of tiie u. lav.ful act of sucli third party.

Defendant larther contends thf^^t tiifc /e is i3ueh a
variance betv.een plaintiff's ;.leauin£^s ana pr^of that to s.istain
the decree, the pleadiJi^^s would first have to be a:.iended, ia
without aerit.

The decree of the circuit co^^rt is aiiirued.

Decree Affiraed.



STATL (.F ILli;.01s( /

Ttru i:o. 17

>T. OLAIK LoAi, G0..n5Ai.Y, IliC. )

Plaiiitiif below, Appellant, J



Defendant "belovv, Appellee. )

Agenda ^io. o

280 I.A. 635


..iL^i/iLisoiJ couirrY.

Murpiv, J:

Tills ease wc a tried in tiie Count;/- Court oi
Williafrison Goont,/ on tn appeal iroi.i a Justice ol ;^'eac;e. The
evidence sliov-s tiu t Cibrence L'c.jeish did on the LJVth day of
April, 195t;, execute a note iur ^/Z'Z^ ^ payable t^ ^iuericic
Loan iiXii:^ Finr-uce Goapany. This vvlc the trade naae unuer v.hich
G. 1. j^iiueric/: w? b doing busiiiess. Tlie note w: s payable in
installiuenta ul ylS.bG, be^in^-ing on the 27th day ol .".ay
lolloping- aiid each uonLh tiiejxalttr , v.ith inocreyt t-iiereon.
On tiie Bt.rae uate, 'cileish secured tiie payiaent of tj.e nuic by
a ciu.ttel moitgatT^ O-'-' ^ 1 oi-d trucK. The uortgagt v. as duly
acicnu\*leaged ana file a l^^r i-cc^ra in tJic recoraer's of lice
of ',.illiai:iaon county, tnat, being 'Ici.eish's rebiuence. iioveinbtr
13, 19o)ty, li-.icriCi - suld tiie nule anu laoitgage to tne ap.ellant
herein anu it ("iive ita cnecx iii paynent therefoit. G. .i.. ^.iia-
eriCiC iiioorsea tlie note without recourse to appelli.nt on the
aaiiie date, ixv aasig'nment ul the cojuract \vithuut, rtcjua^ae
vva s inaorseu a )uxi the Utce ol ti-e mortgage.

Ttriii Jo. 17 Agtuiia iJo. .i

Mrrch ly, I'jo-i, apptlltut institated in ILe
justice court its rtplevin suit aad seiijed tiit. tiuci^ Irom
apptllfcfc. Appellee vv^h a Coiistatle ^i t.:Lt cu.uity and v.b3
holding the truck by virtue of an execution issued 1j a
Juslict of Pefjce on a Judraeut apj. injt .>ici<eish. Tiie datt of
the judf^-aeiit was January 12, ly^n. Vhe execution oi. v*ihich
the sale ;.;., s held v.i.s d&tea I'ebruury 2, 19ji4. Appellant
secured a jud^-.aent in the Justice court but on l trial b^,
Jury in the county coxa-t, a verdict returned i:: favor
of appellee. Jua^.ne^it was cnttrea on the Vciuict.

The record, rs filed in this court, does iiot
show that the note, which the ^ortgc.^re in qaestion was ^xven
t.^ secare, contained a uotation that it^ secai-tu b^' chatiel
.aort^nge. Appellant's abstract did not abstract tliC nute in
full aiiu made ^lo refeience to such a notation, lebroary 18,
19oij, appellee filed his brief ana aa guaent in tnis court in
Vvhich he contends una t tlie note uid iiot bear tiie notaiion that
it^ secured by a chfi'ttel uortgc re ana that theielore it v.a8
void in the iiands of an assir'uee. Four da^ s tiicitaf ti r , ap;tll-
ant obtained of this court to file its 'ooti^n lor diiaiuu-
tion oi recoid ; iiu attached il.ree affidavits, onu of theu beii.e
the affidavit of the attorney for ; ppellant. hach cfiiaiit avcis
that he sa;. the /lote inti-oduced in eviuence at ihe trit:l r nd
that on the left eiid of the n-,te was the "tiiis
note is secured b^' chattel uoitga;-e" and attached to each
afliuavit i.s a priuteu fora of a blank no^L , \.hich each alfiant
sv/eais is a copy of the Jiote introuuced iii evide/ice. .'he af:i-
aavit of appelliut's attorney states that uome ii.tereottu party,
to alfiant m.Anov.'n, secured tiie jiote v.hen it wae in tj.e oil ice
of the cler/. of tl.e county court and reuioved the notation on


Term IIu. 17 Aeenda IJu. u

the lelt end, thi:t it \,'t.a uuue uubbequeut to its au-iiauion
in eviuence prior to ta. ti^e it oopitu into tliia
I't coru.

..'hen apptllaut o^ferea Vut noU in tviue;icc,
the attorney I'or ayptllfee anuooiiced thi. t he h< u "no ot section'.
It v.oula ap pet. r thai, ii' the notf.:tiun v.c.b not on the note av the
tijie it \.i s iJitrodaced in evidence, that appellee ';$ t'ttoi-ne./
Would have ^rgeu ohat, aa an oLJectioi. to itu adi-iiatixon. lor
the puipoae ol tiiis cast, Vve iietd not aelt luine hov« or Ly vviioiu
the notation way rcuoved lro>.i the iioot, bat, on oxiia r<coiu,
v*e arc convincea that ixit notation ^.^a on ti^e n^tt at tiiC ti t
it v<aa introuuctu in tviueni^t in the tii^l coait ana we v,ill
treat the case aa thoa^'h it ay^ptared in tiie recoru.

Appellee contti.ds tiiat tixre is no eviuence
provi.n^f the a. aigJiiiient of tl^e note ana .aoitgat-c to a opcllint
prior to tut institution ol tlie s.iit. Cu the tritl, appeilrnt
olieiea the iiote i-nu i.iortj;; ^j-t in eviutiice and appellee uade
no oL^cctioii to its mtj oo action. I.ach oi said insti'uuenta
haa an indorae..ient L^; the aiortgaii^ee limerick to appellant.
The eviuence is that tiie ijiuorseaent on the Jiote and tlie
asaignriient on the luort^-age was made iroveiater IB, 19»jo. Appell-
ant bou^rht the note i nu mort^'; e I'roiu Hiaerick and paiu lor
it by check. lixe date ol tlie check ia iioveiaber 17, l*joo.
Under this evitienoe, it is clear that the note and
v;as asaigned to appellant priox- to the ijistitution ^X the b>^it.

It is Coiitendeu b^ appellee Llial tiiti e was *.o
prool' of dciaanu jaaae by a ,jpt.llant before the institution of
tiie s.^it. The eviuence xa that tlie repreaentativea of appell-
ant presentea the mortga^re lo appellee and deuanued poaaeusion
of the truck to Vvhich appellee replied that it v..- a all ^ver,
tlaat they had sold the truc/w


Term ::o. 17 Agenda lio. o

In Kee <i Cliapell Co. v. Ttnnaylvania Co.,
'd^l 111. ^48, a witiieas iu-u tt:jtiii(.u ti^at he iii.d gone to
the freight i.^cnt ol appellant and told him there wug a
cei-lotd of lilK bottle i3 £:oin^ av.L:y v.iiich belonged to
appellee cina \.iiit ne waa roiiig to toiCe those Lott-les out,
to which the reply was ..a ae tliat if lie tuO/C them, he v.oald
have tw Qu So legally. The court on pa£;e :^55 said, "Lven
though this be Considered not sufficient as a aemand, it is
sufficient Lo snow that a aeiaand v.ould been unavailing;'
ana theiefjre u.necessf ry , as the effect of appellant's
statement Vi/t s tiit t it v.oulu iiot surrenaei- tiie pioperty v;itli-
out a va'it bt in£' issued. v.hile is .^suail^' necessary
where the delendant coaies into possession oj oiie ^-uut-.a rit'ht-
fully, yet k.hei-e the circuustances .shov. tiiat aeiu; nd v.u ,i.ld
be unavailing;: juch aeaanu is i^ot uecessi ry. Graiiz v. Kioger,
.ic ill. 74; ooiinson v. Hov/e, 2 Crilia. »j42.'' Ihe instant
cui^e is controlled by the rule aiinounced in ihe cited case.

Appellee conttj^us ^na t tiiere ^vas no proof
tiiat the note and ixiortgaje were in default and that tneie is
no proof that appellant acted u-.der the insecurity clause ^f
the tiort^Tpe. The evidence siiov.s th;;t the note c.nd aiurt^-a£;e
were past d .e . Had the moiithly payments been .^ade, as pro-
vided in tue no le and faortgacX-, it v.ould not hjive been past
uue; therefore, under the evidence that it was past uue, the
reasonable conclusion is that there i.aci been uefault in tlie
payments. In ai-uitiou, tiiere xs evidence that appellant
notilied t. ppellce of its moit^^bre cli x.a belore appellee iielu
tiie ejcecution saie. jnaei- tiiis bva-e ol tlit ncoru, Liieit ^s
aiaple proof tiiat the uebt was uue* Lven if it v. as n^t aue ,


Term »o. 17

igtuiia .io. %j

appellf,iit warrtintt-d in seizin,- tlit tracK LUiUtr the iiice-
carit^' clfiUBi; in the laortgaj'^^-e.

Unuer the eviaeuce in Lhiu catjt, the coai-t
erreu in nut directing a vei-dict lor i.pptllant.

Tile juu^naent oi the lov tr court is rcvei-sed
and the order \.ill bt tJitired b^ tlie clerk ol inia coart
that appelli.iit slicll have a/id rt. cover ol' a .pellee the }-ord
truck as desciibed iii sf- iu mortpf-^rt instrunent.

.iudgiaent of the lower court is
reversed and jadgraent here.

iA/^OoH \fAM^^^^'




Term i«o. 19

Agenda i;o. 18



?laintiff->^ppellefc, J





A Corporation, |

Delendant-.^ppellant. \

Murphy, J;

In 1895, appellee v.aa in the employ of appell-
ant at its factory, it was en{;:figed in the aanulacture
of vitrified tile and iiipe. In the coj.rse of his emplo/nent ,
appellee sustained an injury, resultin^r in the losii uf his
rif^ht hand alove the wiist. lie made a claiia for d^ma^es and
in DeceaLer ^4, 1895, the parties entered into a contract
undertaking to settle and aajust appellee's clai u The con-
tract is the subject latter oi this liti/^r; tion. This case
was hefore this coui t at a jieviouG tera and we then revej std
a judt-ment in iavor of appellee ana remanded the cause. d'Jl
111. App. 18. Upon a letrial, tlie jui-y returned a veruict
for appellee for ..^tJUUO and jud^Taent was entt red on Liie verdict.

'hen the caoe v;as here on the :ireviou.s appeal,
appellant suu^^ht a construction of the conti.' ct, v.hich v.ts
inconsistent v^itli the tiieory upon \.hich it liau tried tlie cat.e
and v.e held tiift its contention on cuns traction was not avail-
able on aopeal. Otliei errors were assigned v.hich v.ert sasttined.

One of the errors assifvied is the court's
refusal tu rive certain insti-actiona and t^ie correctness of
the court's ruling in that re.-r rd is to be Uttenaineu by the

Term i^o. 19 Agenda i;o. 18

construction £-iven the cuntract.

The contract, nfter setting- forth the dt-.te
of appellee's injury £..rid his elf im lor djna^es, provided
that in considerftion of hi« ri^-lit of action to recover
damages 'the sp id stoneware "^ipe Coinpcny has agreed and
hereby does a^rree to ixtaiji vnd. .ceep tine said party of tliC
second part in its eraplo^- so lon^ is the s? id party of tlit
second pai-t desirea tu rtiaain in iti: euiploy, finu to pay
hiiH for his s^r\±cev, ; t tJit rrte of iiot less than two dollf. rs
and fifty ceiits per diy, uf ten iiuurc ec';Ch, tlie saia wa^res
to be pfid for the ti:ae Lht said pj.rty of the second lart
may be acta?;lly employed, * * "*" it bcin{^ the onuerstanaing
by this af-ree:aent ohrt s; id psrty of the second n^it sliall and retain his position with sjiid co.apmy so long as
such e;":iplo;,/afent is desired by him, rna lie is able to per-
form his proper duties, find liir t sf^id pt rty of the first
ptrt sliall not h£ive tlie rirht or power to discharge liiia or
dispense \.ith his services, e>cept as heieinrbovc stated",
vmicii is referred tv^ lierein fs paragraph one. This contract
contained tl^e further provision v;hich is material here,
"^The said ;)arty of the first j){rt also agrees tiiat in case
it, the sf id otonev.-are Pipe Company, should i-.l any tiiae v.lth-
in ten (lu) yccjrs from this dfte make an assignment lor tlie
benefit of its crtdiLors, or be or become insolvent, oi- should
it for an inaefinite I'.eriou shut aown iti; worjca (it L» ing
uriderstood. that the terra "indefinite period" shall JiOt be
taken to ..lean a shut down ior the purpose ol Jiecess; ry
repairs in said plant or something of like chari cter, but
shall refer only to i. tTeneicl or co.apj.etc ohut down brought

about Ly a combination with other pr rties or througli outside

cause::), then t.nd the event of any one of tlie above causes,


Term IJo. 19 Agenda ::o. 18

the saici party of tiie stcoud oart shall liave , ii is
hereby exprea^-ly stipulated thrt ue v.ill, ti legal aud
subsistin/; claira araiiist said cumpany lor a definite arid
certain sum to be fi>.ed as follows: That is to s?.y, he
shall be paia and shall receive the sun of loar hanarea aad
fifty dolltrs {;p4DU.oUJ for each oneapired year oi said
terta of ten years; lor exanple, should s?-ia o oiapaxiy maKc an
assignment or should uhut uov/n its ..urlcs at tiic expiration
of ont yerr fro.n this date, or thcjeabouts, then the said
party of the second oart shall have o claii.i a.ainst said
co,apany for tiie sum of lour thousaiia ana fiit^'; if
at the e^cpiration of two years then he shall iiave a claim
tor the sum of thirty-six hu^.ared dollars, and so on iu like
manner, decreasiuf^ at the rate ot 1 o ir hunoreu and fifty
dollars each year until the expiration of ten years afoiesaid,
after which vime the said prrty of tiiC second part shall liave
the ri£;-ht ana the ri^^ht only on continuous eiaploy lent at the
rate of two dollrira and fifty cents per dfy.", vaiich is rtftr. ed
to as parafrraph two.

After the execution of t);e contract in 1895,
tiie parties entered upon the perforaauce of the sr^me and it
aoes not appear tliat any controversy arose over any of its
terms or Kina uf eaployaent appellee v^as to be (jiven uiitil
appellant disciu.rged appellee in 19,^1, when, by reason ul tiie
general econoiaic c.niditiun in tiie country, it closeu its plant.
It has been closed since, except lor tiie i.ioiiths of .'.ay, June
ana ^uly, 19;64, when tlie factory wat; oner: ted and appellee £^iven employment ior th; t pci'iod in rc^ura* nee ;.ith tlie


It is appellant's contention th( t the contract
did not cive appellee any li-'ht of employment ^.hile its plant


Term IIo. 19 Agenda ::o. 18

was closed for "outride cfiuaes", sach aa the .'I'ener.'l economic
coudiiiuns. It is conceded that when a"»pellant begins operat-
ing its plant tl-iat appellee coulu under the provisions ol t)ie
contract be entitled to re-eaploy.ient .

On the 1 oraer appeal, we lielu that ti.e contract
was baaed upon a release ut damages by plointiil, that such
release iurnished a valid ana suflicient consideration and
that such contract is in the lit-.ture ol' a contract for perinaneiit
e:aployment. It is proper foi- the cuart to take into coiisiaera-
tion the SJ.rrounding circuiastances ?ina to place itstlf in so lar as
may be possible in the saae situation as the partie;^ who made
the coil tract, so that it nay view tlie cii cumstauces as they
viev.ed then and ;.-o it i:iay judge tlie laeaning of ti^e v.oi'ds ana
their application to tlie things described as the pai-ties
judged and applied ther.i. But, this cues not give either
party the right to establish f diifeitnt contract t'ro;r. that
expressed in tlie v.ritten agreement. Arrastrong Psint '..orks
V. Can Co., »>01 111. 1U2. It is to Vc presuj.ied tJiat the
parties introduced intu the contract eveiy aateria^ itera and
term tnd in construing it, uhe eoui-t will not t dd tiicreto
another team about ..hich the a.greeraent is silent. Liecatur
Lumber Co. v. Crail, o50 111. ol'J; ^tci ling-i,lidlf.nd ^o;.l Co.
V. Coal 00., ..-^id 111. 231. A provii^ion in a contiact cannot
be given effect \.hen the court is left to asceitain the
iiitention ol the parties upon s -ch provisions by uere con-
jecture cr guess. .,oods v. x^vans, 11.. 111. I'o. "Ihe motives
and intentions ol the parties c; n only be J:i;ov,n from ti»t v.riting
to v.hich tlie contract is reduced, anu no assojaptioii v^hich ia
contrary tu ti.e language u^icd therein can be baaed upon aiiy
external consider; tion. (Kraerich Outfitting '-o. v. Cicgtl,
Cooper 'i Co., 2^7 111. olU) ihe iiitentlon r.iust be uettrnined



Term No. 19 Agenda JJo. 18

froa the laiit'-ua^t used in the instrument und not li-om any
sarraise that the parties used in the lanp-uaj-:e tu e> press an
intention or neanin^ they ht a in nind but failed to express
and if tiie^' have overlooked a condition v/hich the^' v.ould perhaps
have pi-oviaea xor, ii it he d occui-red to thc::i, the court cannot
gueas at the provision the^' \.ould probt bljf hfive m?. ae anu by
coiistruction re. a it into ti.e instroiaent on tjie presuinptioii
that lixi-y would nt t^irail^, i,{ ve atce s ^ch j)rovisioii ii tiie^' hau
thouf-'ht of it." Green v. Abhltna ^taie Bank, iS-io 111. 174.

lii parat'raph one, the tern erapioyuent is to
be "so long as the st- id part.- of the second part (fppellee)
aesires to remain in its employ"'. The latter part oi para^rraph
one provides, "'it bein^; the understandinf^ by this a^Tetuent saio party ol tr.e second i^ivt (rppellee^ sliall have and
rett in nis po3ition with sf;ia company so lon{r as such employment
is oesired by him and he is able to perlorra his proper uatie. ".
Theae para^-'raohs eit bror.c as to point of tine the employment to continue and the services to be renderca by appellee.

The eviuence showfj that at the time tiit contract
was laade, apnellee vvf s eiTiplo;,'ed as a f'^rt„iau, anu appellant
novv conttiids that tlie contract should be construed as fivin^
appellee tiie ri^-ht only lu be enployeo ;s for. Man and since
outside causes iiave prevented appellant Iroa operating its
lactory that tjiei e been uo work as lor ipptllee, and,
that e lioea not i.; a claim lor cr-aaf-es in this cast. ^his
contiact crnnot be coustnued as giving ar)pellee the rifht to te
employed at any particular v.ork and cannot be cunatruea au liiait-
in^r the '.ork ol a pellee to taat which ne v.: s aoi.-f at the ti.-ae
of the making oi the contract. Theie were many uiflfcjtnt Kinos
of e^ripiuyment i/i plaintifl's ft^ctory ana for the court to eay
that v.hen the cuntr;ct was ura^.n it v.f.y iatenaea to liiit tlie
employ.;ieiit ol appellee to the work at v.hich he v.a. then enct-'geQ


Term Ko. 19 Agenda ::o. 18

vrfoula be lor tiiis Coart t^ re;.(l aoaethinn- into the contri^.ct

tnat tiie o.-rties hbd not ap:reea upon. it iu coritt .-.ueii t:.t.t ti.e

vvorcls "as iieret^iort " luliowinf; Vtw sentence "his Baid wag-es to

"be paid lor the tiaie tne saio party of tiie second part .uay be

actually e;.iplo„'ed'' refei'S to the kind ol enploy.ifent . -e ere

01 x.he opinion tha"u uhe words '"as heietoiore'' sliould be construed

as reierriug zu tlie payiaent ot wj. ges anu not to previous e.aploymei-t.

Our constr.ction oi paragraph tv. o . hich maae
piovisioa lui- ounuitions ti.eiein ua.ied iiappeninf; . ithin ten
years i'rorn contract Ltte, has no R"DplicaLion since tlie te;i
year perioa na.s long si.xCe expired. I'he language useu at tue
Conclusion ol the ^ air ,-Taph ''uecrefsing (tiiat i;: tne annual
payment; at tne r; te ol lift^- dollars each ^-et r until tne
expiration of t* n years alorer^aid alter which tiiae the s; id
pfrty of the second art snail have the ri,lit ana t},e rirht ol continuous eraploynient at t!xe rate ol t\o Qollars aud
fifty cents per day ' should be coiiStrued as referring' to
employment altt r the expir.'^ ion of the ten vea.r period provided
for in sr,id pnra p-xajih two. xlic v.ords ''afte;- winch tine'' lefers
to tne tt. n year period.

Ihere v;a.'.. no error in the construction given
the contr; ct by the tri? 1 court and its ril^SJl of ? rptilent's
instruction is sustained.

The linal contention oi a; pelli.nt iS even
thoufu the contrrct should be co/.straed as giving appei-iec a
right to cluia e.nployment uurin/; the ptriou ^.hen uppellfnt'u
plant closed, yet the veraict o. .not be sustained lor t.-e
reason that he not proved t^ a prepo)iacrance ol tliC evidence
that i.e was able lo perlorm ti.e duties it l^ao lor iiiia to perlorm.
The only v; ^rk appellant (.j;e aaring the period tiie lector^ v.» s
closed wf's ol a genert 1 naturt , ::uch aa c> ring lor J.nd liandling
horses, Cutting weeds, laying brick in walks, lo. uing aiio unload-


Terra JIo. lU

Afcnati i^o. 18

ln{; tile, Moviur utbris, and ni,-lit -ftatchiaan. T^liiiitiif
testified that iie coula hitch and c re lor horuts, f^up.rd
preiisea, ,Be i lire o.tin-aisht r , lay LricJc v.aiks, uct a
scytlie in cutting v.etds pnd othci ^inilr.r labur. Ke is
corroLorr.tea b^ v^itneases v.ho sav. him a. saoh labor but
the labor tJib;- observed iiii do v,as ol shoit d .ratijn.
Appellant ';s testilied that i.e i.oaid not ■erlorn
Ifibor Kuch as appellant had lor appellee to do. ihis pre-
sented a question ol 1: ot lor tJic jury \/e caruiob say
as a iiiatter ui la\.' thr t t'.e veruiot v.x-g Uot v.arrautea by
ti^e eviuoice.

For the reasons ausigned, tlit JuQ^rient ol tJ.e
lo.vcr court is slliraed.

Jud(?ment affinaeu.

-Wk:^\) ^ /WHaM ^4W/<

. V

-lAY TERM A. D.J.935.




2,8 I.A. 635

In Equity
Ho. 5970
(ForeoIOBura. )

Appeal froui th«
Clroult Court of
St. Clair

In Equity.
Ho. 5971


Plaintiff ana Appallao



Defanaont and ATpellant,


COB A B. KlIOvJLES, His V»'ife, AMOS

Defaxidants and Appallaoe

Plaintiff aiiu Appal lae



Def endnnt and Ap' ellant


COP A B. KlIO'LEf^, His VJife, and

Defsndanta and ApTsalleee
(Consolidated. )

STOIJE, J. > la this oasa tiiare ara arrore assignad

and tha Covrt'a attantlon la oallea to proof so supporting auoh
aBBigimanta tiiat in the state of tJae reoord -e faal warranted in
reversing this oase. The Appellee Heb made no attemit to ana*er
tbaae a8signu.ent8. or to show any reaeon of any kind or oharaoter
Why the oase should not be reversed. Appellee in that re.peot la
in violation of tha rules of this Court, ana tha oauae ahould ba
raversea for that reason alone. *e do not regard it aa our duty
to argue the oausa of Api ellae for her.

The decree la, therefore, revoraad. ana the oauaa ia
remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County ..1th InBtruo-
tioos to that Court to aiaa^las tho bill for «ont of e.iuity.





FEBRUARY TER.,; A. J. iy;'.5

T'RIL I JO. 18.


I Plaint iff-Apneilee,

■ vs.

RAY' "ON D F. L:0"T!E,
I Defendant-Appellant,

AGKiiDA ::c. 17.

280 I.A. 635

Appeal from the
City Court of
EuLt Ct. Louis,


I This is an ap:-eal from tho City Court of ".xat dt. Louis. It

is frorr. a 'judgment of oho City C .urt in the smn of Cr''^500.00 fis damaGoa
for person;il injuries r'ecoivf.d by Appellee on t!io nij^ht of I-'ay 2yth,
1933. Tho iniuries w^ re rocclvod by her about i'iid»'/i ^'it of said ni,;,ht,
on State Street in East St. Louis, vhlle she wu;: a c^f^f^t 'n the automobile

Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.280) → online text (page 53 of 54)