Illinois Appellate Court.

Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.279) online

. (page 58 of 91)
Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.279) → online text (page 58 of 91)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


MoBurely and Matchett, JJ,, ooneur.

^•iii«iu^ a« e8»aj3d^cf9bai 000, UX| Sii^ J»aa

9fi^ ]^al%i$ OoiBuJ:do>i hi. , t aoanldoR

;>.ov ,.-'..;...', '.'<'! ''a boJtt^Q 9iii ^aXiub ham •%«6«Iq»i jsit

,i>>uac.. . , ., i9xioiBiL has xl9xuii9A


JOHJS ». BTSUU and JfRl^Di^ snilki



Appall ant.



tm Qmkn qm cook.

279 LA. 637^



I3S3Pi.AlJm3 STATE BaKK, « (ior-



Aj'»»«Ai. i«<ai soFSRiom Gomt


usLirsfiBD fwa opmion oy Tim couht,

thtt for«going thrse aases hav® b«ftn isoneolidated for
hearing witii «aae lio- 37944, Chloaf^o II tie ^d. 'Iruat ^o.. a Qo^r.a<rf ^»

t j| ..ft« ^,,ljl,^^ XrMigt^ ,<^it, T^ , ,T|i«} ■<^!Quij.ty , of ^OP-^fn i^i whleh letter ease w«

haT« today filed sm opinion; imA i'&t the rtaeons «tat4»d in that

opinion thft judgment of th« superior court, iri cr&oh ease, i& r«*

Y9rse<i an4 the cftuee remanded for further proeeedings a« tnereln



M«8urely and lUitehett, 1<7. , esneur.



. A0OO '6.0

« « V

( -1©


■.i r'<.i.r


,3000 ud r^iiuod zm

rrtJiosaoo ftii^d' i>r«rf atsuss) »«'Xi3f^ ictloijeir y

■ '^'ri^^ lo't l»{M ;atdlnJt4o «« Jb«Iit ifsnoj S'/iia

■lu mi^' u=i-i.

i4k ammLrm.

,%u9aM ,.Xt «#t*x(»#*ll ha» ^»tilt*ll


G. a, HIGH, / / // )

R. G. VCDt, IKC. , * Corporation,




'iZl^.k i^ * i^ l.A. 63 8^


UKLlVaHii:!) Ti£E OJpnaOii OM '£m COU^f,

By thia appeal the dof^asaata, M, G, Juyiy, Inc., a oorpor»-
tlon, imd H. L. iiu^es, seek to reverse a jud^eiit of tlie Munieipftl
oourt ol* Chicago for $175, entered i^g^iiiet tjaeu o» a finding of tlie
oourt iE faTor of the Finance Uredit Co rpo ration, whioii Interrened
irt the eauae,

October 20, 1932, Q. R. High, ty his attoMQey, Joha Martin,
brought &n action against H. 0. Xydy, Ine. , a cox^oratioB, end
R, L. Hughes, to reooYer Amiisi^en claimed to have l&een sustained
by faim through the neglij^^eaee of the defendaiits in doiriaging plain-
tiff's »utom3bile. The daaiages were laid in tiie suih of $1C00.

Oetofeer 23, 19 32, the def€!ndantB, by their attorney,
Wllllaa A. Hanson, filed «aa aiffiaavit of sierits denying liability,
Kfty 8, 193 5, an order was entered by stipulation of the i^arties
(sigsed by Martin and jLaafman, thereby I. W, Kaufman's appeararioe
was entered as an additional attorney for j^laintiff) wtJLoh provided
that ne disposition should be made of the ease without the consent
and approval of iiaufman, M^ay 3, 1934, defendants filed an amended
affidavit of merits in which they again denied liability and
averred that plaintiff should not further maintain his aetion be-
eause he had executed a release whereby he released «nd forever
diseharged defendants from all claims, Four days later. May 7th,
the yinanee Credit Corporation, by its attorney, iCaufman, filed
its intervening petition in whioh it set up that it was engaged

1 Q "a'S < ao^Ki^

©iii to iii^. 3iii #Bai«ij^a bst4i^i» ,CVXi lot 0]^uir(D 'to ^luoo


xa JbaXl , , . ^iJat4M»S to Xsvc o

in the automoMle l»,g business; that April 6, 1932, it loaned
money to High, wtio executed a diattel mortg^e on the automoljile
vhleh wae (3&tsag«4 hy defeudants «nd was the baeie of the Buit, &aA
that there was a "balarjoe «1ue from Hl^ on aeeount of tiie money
leaned to him. It waa further averred th©,t about July 1, 19:5? ,
the automol5il# in ouestion w%e wrecked while on the psirklng
premises belonging to defendant I.ydy: that afterward filgh defaulted
in the payr?ients ilue as proTi^ed in the chattel mortgage; that after
default the Finanee company learned of the daiaage to th* automo-
bile and the paadeney of the suit in the Hunlei-pal court, and May
3, 1933, it (Sitei'Sd into an agreement with High whereby he conveyed
to it •one-half interest in his claim and cause of action," and
that High and the |>etition«r entered into the stipulation above

!Ehe petition furtlaer act ttp thAt on May 8, 19 33, the cause
esffie on for h«?aring i« the Municipal eourt; that Eaufisan, eounsel
for the petitioner, app feared b=?fore the court and advisel the court
of petitioner's interest in the suit and of the agreemerit entered
lato betwe«» High »n6. the petitioner, as above stated; that at that
time all the parties were represented before the court, ?and the
prayer was that leave be givwi the 39 et it loner to intervene. An
order was entered accordingly. May 9th the cause was heard before
the oourt without a lury and there was a finding in favor of the
iat^arvenor, J*inance Credit Ccrporation, for |175 against the de-
fendants; .lUflgjaent was watered on the finding, and the defendants

The record discloses that plaintiff. High, entered into a
written agreement with the finance Credit Corporation, the inter-
vener, i^ch recited that he was indebted to it in the sum of
#438,20 by -virtue of a prosiissory note rsnd chattel jaortgage on the
««toa4»bile in question. Tlie agreement further recites the pendency

L.:i« , :.ux.:i ©xf* «Mi% fca* mia&ba»t»b x^ ^ ^«* rlftiihr

r«o biUB Ml«Xe ••■-' ^^mt*$aX 'tiijii-tftao'* ;?i o*

id;. ..liji-MjJi. *j-a* la 4iilij»£ii *i'5ji '»o »JQAe

tfr: aetniaX m^t^nottl^^i^ 'to

— ■■■-■■• -^lU


of the ca.a« in the Municipal eourt; that plaintiff** elalut In that
ease waa for the recovery ef the value ef the aatonuehlle, and that
High had aRel^::n«»(l ^on^^half interest in hie eltftim sm4 cause ef
aetloa* to the interrenor,

lEhe ervidenee further shows that plaintiff. High, en June
6, 1933, in Gonei deration ef #350 paid to him by hydy and iiughes,
exeetited a general release releasing defendants from all claims
"from tiie hegiiining of the world to tlie dat«» hereef * and partleu-
larly all olaims and ^m>&g^» to the automobile in question which
plaintiff had |>arlced in one of defendants' i^arking lets. The re*
least referred partleularly to the Munlelpal court case.

The Vinanee Credit Corporation, the interrenor, contends
that judigaant for |17g in Its favor is right and ^ould be affirraeA
for the reason that hefore defendants obtained ^e release from
l^lalntiff, in con»i<lerati©n of |3S0, they were advised of plain-
tiff's assignment to it of one-half of plaintiff's Interest in the

There is no evidence that defendants sss^tf^d to the assign-
ment snd obviously plaintiff and def endant^had a ri^ht to settle
their diff erenees if they chose to do ao, without noticing the
assifgoment te the interverior, leaves v. Q, B. & Q., E. M. Co.^ 200
111. App, 380, By the assig?iM«Dt the intervenor did not obtain
any lien on the olaim made by plaintiff in tJ-ie suit sueh as is
provided by the Attorney's Lien Act (par, 13, chap. 13, Cahill's
1933 Statutes.)

Moreover, there was no evidence offered on the trial to
prove that Plaintiff had a eaase of action against the defendants.
He had alleged faets setting up a legal claiiB on the ground of
defendants' negligenee, but defendants had d«^ied. all negligcsice.
The fact that defendants had paid plaintiff #350 for a release does
net neeessarily prove that if the case were tried plaintiff would

' Utii£.lq iftiii ;txtsoo JM.qi»ltti0 •<(# sl •Mo adS to
«. .«3 »lJi CO aulMT »JtW 1« X1t»TO»9T s»ri* lot s«w «««9

X. *:../,;. ■;■. r, .•>;• ' ,....v^''«!- "■».Lf!ri*»no"' lM«>n::4i«iiM |j«il ^IM

,a«iJija::' ^ ■• ^'"..■. ^ ~— ., .:«« OeCl^ 'io no|;r«'i:»jbieaoi — , ., . «S
8j£ai:«i,- ...... ^^.x1 »ftmba9t»b ^ai»A*ioT oiuy»i.9% iMWrntj^ » h9tu99X9

-»/#i*t»Q &.' - ' '-'t •••••■-■ ^^.t^i) •/!-■ '^^'^ ? v-iair vift. t^ jIHifl.-UB*'''^ " * -noil"

. ^t»o #iiuo9 liiq^»i:aiilil •tilt o«f ^i«iii'ol#'K«(i f>eT£ft'i=''o
■....^ 'to h^airkA •^»« ^oii;r,oaS$ !» OAiicaf hiaoeo at jTli^^aieXer

^.;-. ..rtfni.lo." iii. - >i-,il-v ,nr.; o^ oj ••OXio X9SiS tt »*©n»19't1 ll> . •jltlM'

OOS ^ .-, , > . .. > - . - . . a^yf^ »19ii»r«iai: •ii-* oi- -!.a - *ja., 'ae.^

Kf .■ rtffi ;trtvi :i;" 'vfv iAyT-iikii 9dJ isams^t99s 9di x^ - « '-• «

... i^niaXq ^tf «lusm ibJ:£Xo »xi4 no twiX ^^em

til nlf ^ ^ _ .;./:<?) jToA iii'ilJ ••'^ni;o;t*A »il* x^ h9ktr&f%

,»ai»SiX3»ii 1X« 6«l£it^ fcijii «*iir,&»3«'t«& .*«tf ,»»is«»5*iX®»a * 9ta»ha9'tt9ts

have "been aucoesaful, Qaio&xjstn y« IXiii'io.ift ^.fce«X ^o . , 162 111, ^p,

.for the resiFons stated tJae 4udgBs,»rit oi* thm Municipal oottrt
©f Chicago is rftTereed,

MeSurely ana M»tch«tt, JJ. , coflour.

jits:^ -.lixuM. » &i)a^u\, •itd te>

^•iio^«a bam xX*tire«Ji



Ai>p«llant, )

* A • D o o


ifJl. JUSTiaS keSt/RKl^Y niaiVBRSl) TISM OJ'lUlOfi OF 'IHE COUItT,

ISCjO entered i^i'ter trial b> tite court, i^laifitiJ'i" 's uxaim was I'or
dstf&agee turott^^ tJat breacu oT ar* aXXeged &o&tx-act bet»ee2i Uie
I»&rtiee» J>(sf«cidacit asserts t^iat tac^re w&s no cojutraet ioatweim
tu6fii - that ttiftir Kdnda rtever iu«t.

Plaintiff owned lot 16, hxoek 2, ic Isortii OaK l-ark. aub<ilvi»
aion; }xe €^tere4 Into n«igetiatidns witJa defendant leo^iag to the
«r«!etion bijr plaintiff ®f a reaidaiice oiu tJa^e lot sxiA a [email protected]»e« te
defendatfit of the flntira [email protected])Hiise«« tiie uei^otiatlona to this «»d raa
along for some tiaej in Dfecesber, 1930, plaintiff submitted to de-
fendant a rough aketeii of an elevatloa of tu^ reniatuiov; again in
J'sbruary, 1931, olaicia of tue r«8i<i«i«iee were subsaitted, whiola vein
not aeeeptablo to defef*dant and further plan© were submitted;
JPebrutiiry 26, 19.11, defendaat wrote iiis "O.K. »* nu blue prints of
the oropoeed reaideneet these blue |>rint» were merely of trte plana
ef the propo&ed residence, eJaowing di»€».i6ions»

JPlaintiff eubaequently eubmitted to defe^ridant a draft of a

oontraet dated Maroh 10, 1931; tiais was not acceptable to defendant;

Ifiay 11th a furtii«r contract v&a prepared by plaintiff's lawyer and

eubxflitted to defendant; speeifieationa drawn by plaintiff's exebi-

tect were also submitted to defendant, who eaid he would have hit
lawyer examine the contract and hie arohifcect exaaiine tlie speeifi-

eations; thereupon defendant's lawyer re-drew the oontraet and ht«

architeet revised the epecificatioae, making SLeeific the character




V; v-^ ,■■-?

rj o ^

r-..n yi^!' iiKa'ii/T.uTf' "r'.iirirvio-' jidit.^uX .f?\

9UJ £jst»»v»d ^aai^^noa iK»j»«XX^ idA^vrf ftiU ti^oxdi M»^amb

,i»a -z»r«it «i>aia xtdo.

mt »»£Ui(/:t»vaoo « htui «foI SiU ao •ottsiixaoi « 'to Ttiinieia x<^ ttolt^ntm

it! ai.«>^ ;ooa05X8 > noiJ^^vdXe a« 'to daimtei siskHot & ia»ha»t

<)i^r iu.iti'^r ^batilmaua ai^w •ocubicAt tiii 'io vooia ,XS9X t^^UijaJel.

;A)t»^lXncitfC sivw soaXq 'UiiJiu'l Jboa SembMi't&b oJ ^Limiq'^ouA i9a

•aaoiSiiieu'.. , k^uoqa ^o

\inst>ns'if)b qH ^loaiqaaoa ioa aiiw ai/ii jXCSi ,0X doinii h^iMJn i9sniaoo

ai^j . /oabiiii'l' ,^;?i»dti« oftX« wita-w !&«•«?

»i1io - ^f; ;j3.>xr.:j-i ' ' ■ ■ :■ ■ t f at)0 " "' ^ '"^ """ ~ ' ''

tiff />n« adw-i-iiL. - .'3iW»|>a9*UL no. < '>T

of pluffibing fixtur*« aad ether details uhleh had l3««ii Offiitted trtum
the s«>«eifioatloxiv tendered lay jplairUil'f. ilie oontraet pr«$^ared lay
defendaat'e attorney eall«d for a prloe of |BX,S^O lor the lot, houce
and garage. i»iaiiatlfl* refuned to sign this eentraet, giving @,s his
reason that it had an oljeetienahle alauae. Plaintiff testified that
he 'phoned defendant ahout this ohjectionaDl<t clause and wae teld l>y
defendant to strike it out and go ahead witii the «ork, IJefendant wie-
nies this aua testified that plaintiff said he wowia net slgo the
contract tendered hy defendant heoause the specif ioat ions revised
"by defendant's arehiteet would require an added charge of about

llOOO or ^1500 ©Tsr the price of #21,500 stated in the contract.

Plaintiff testified that irhen/got ready to start huilding

deferidatit 3t©pped him; that some eesient forms for concrete work were

Ijrong it t© the lot hut were not used and no werk was done. I*ater, l>y

letter d«fcted May 18, Itm, defendant notified jplaintiff that further

negotiations were terminated.

It is clear that botn parties intended that a written eea*
tract Srtould be executed by them, l*laintiff rtfused to ai^ the con-
tract tendered by defendant for perhaps a Justifiable reason, na: ely,
that it called lor an increased cost of construction. The parties
sever did agree in whole, and no contract was signed. Plaintiff's
claim is based upon the alleged breach of a contract arid ensuing
daisages in his lost profits. If the parties could net agree en the
cost and the character of the construction, there was no eentra«%
between them, Sngrie t. ByiidicSfte Pes CaltiTaters a es O ifmone
a'gleur . 1G4 111, Apt>, 165; Kusse t. aiBoechiq, 368 111. 470; atone
▼. Saggett . 73 111. 3«7,

Plaintiff says that there are »any eases holding that where

l^arties have verbally agreed on teraas and the buil«ier is directed to

proceed with the work called for by th# plansjywrittea contract is

not neeessary to bind the parties, defendant denied that he gave

aay such instructions, and we are iacliaed to think that the greater

ii-S .Jt-i

;...„-..,■- . ,. . . „ ., , . e.-oa ^Idi 8»ia

,- atlijptt JbXuov i»»:fi - i > ?•' cfiigftne _ .. ..

jjHI^' to OOOIS

-.ibitalft*/' ^ , » , -.Till

■ r^


«r(.t ??.;i



■r. ;0?> .1X1 tS?-; ,-

,• ,v -ns-u'! 'SSI , - ^crA ,X'Xi

, .yjj>

■ t'i J".f;f'

-.- ■;, .Ilia «>«t**Ah.irtiian -



weight oi' tho «vldeno« suisports Ttia Btat«6aent,

HSrwvR it defendant *B |>ositlda siioul<^ \ie^ eom«»wh%t weakeiied
liy tlae fi«*!fPtlon cf fact irivolve* with reference to the all«»ge(fi
dlreetlone to go aiiead wi-Oi the work, there Is an©tb.«r anai con-
elueive r«»»Gn why plaintiff Is not «sn titled t© reeov«r.

Ilji9 contrfkot prop©n«Ni wa« I'or the comreyaree by pls.lntiff
te defendant ©f reftl eatat* witi* buildings. In oontesBT)latlon of
the law smoia buildings are real estate, Bef {jf^ftar.t nl«a<?ed the
statute of frau4», waicii ©rovidea that no ntctlon ©nail be brought
to charge any person upon any contraet f©r the srIp of lands un-
Iet»8 suoJtx contraet er eiome laomornndum or note thereof shall be in
waiting, signed by the farty to be charged therewith. Chap, 59,
•ee. ?, Illinois statutes {Cahill.) Ihle rule h&9 been applied in
many cases. d m ^h mvTy r ^ ^J olloway . 3 ">§ 111, 334; Kohlbreclter v^
g uettcrmatm ^ 329 111. 246. In the instant case neither party
signed any contract er any Kii«n\oran<imn, and plaintiff di<i ko worlc
wiiiob alfeht have had the eff «!et of aToiding the oppratioii of the

^^irsi .Fy e .^rian Church y, iawari son . Xvu Hi, App, 59,
eited by plaintiff, is not in i^oint. "JPh©re was aseroly an agr^^emeat
to erect a baiiding, I'io eonveyaiiee of land was Involved, This Is
also true of i»endnagel ▼. iaohiaTone . 203 ill, App, 365. In una-
aerf ^er v. j i fceyer . 817 111, 3«2, the vetidor recelTSd part of the
purchase price of the real estate i^nd gave a receipt which recited
the total price ^mA was signed by the vendor. X t was held that this
WAS n. saffieif«t memerandum as it contained the nsuume of the par-
ties, description of the real estate and the terms and conditioas
of the sale,

Plaintiff argues strenuously that the 0, K, placed by the
defendant upon the plans is a sufficient racBiorandaKi in writing.
These eketeiries contain jfierely plums and show notiita& about cost.

'iwii'?' '. i v^ Mil.:

... '^-, n. '1 » ,__.^«iJ

lOi J '-J • ' !„■ .' ' "' i> .• v-rt

■i^r-yj iio'J

;1 .'ii afl^.-; p.-j' , ■ Toi«^fi •Ion'" " ' ,

,'t;j I .;../_ .■■jtfj. »■ ^y_'v'>,ij. .^ jfelJ.

1* t,J .1 * I 'W «! »i ^»

•« j.'.^

»jij »'x' J».; «»j iiit.

r. .*

■ -^ r*^ i - '■• ■ ■ „ ,,

I <-/ V,,. X, ■■• ■••>■'- •• ■ '..■ ■.. .^ -

6ehar«ct«r of met?TK-a. or -worluftttfiahlp-, i^-j terior trim, liglitiag or
plumoinii fixtures, iioreover, d«feiidai*t aoted iit» o. iw, oia tiie
plsjus in Fftbruary, 1931, while no eatiaates aa to oost ^era Mubmit-
ted until tha folloti'lBg month. A.6 we iiave seen, the pei,rti©0 i'&il«d
to agree as to the cost of the residence constructed as dei'etidant
dealri'd. ilue prints of plans -^las ntt% a »uffiel«Mit s&mL&rmiivm
In "writin:.:, to charge defsnctant upon a contract to puroiiase real
estate. It follo"ws that the statute of frauda is si pwisipieta bar
to any recoYery in this case.

For the reaecna indicated tiie Jud^^evit is xevexaed* aad aa
ftlaintiff cannot recover jud^ent will Ise entered for deft^ndant
in this court,

0*0©n»or, P, ^. , and Matdastt, J,, concur.

«x^ju«t :

^iiaoM ;^aJiWo lie

idftbnti'tnjb e,

rt id aitslq

ilvir alt



, ."JezioJir^i pjir , .


a Com© ration, as TruRtee,


WILLI Ai»: WALSH et ai. ,

Defend iint«.

WALTiiR ii. iiAi^K^, as ^ueoeasor-
fiec«lver of HOSiEL LA.WHB&C4',

vs. )


Kcoalver of PHILLIP ilTAm BAMK AM3

I, A. '-3 8-



this case ir*-9^olvea $300 alloi»ed t© WllXiaja L. O'Oonnell,
auecesor-recexTer of J?iilllip State Bsaiic and Trust Company a« fe«8
for seiTTieeR, and the qaeetion presented le. Out of whidi of two
foBds should this allowaiaoe ^^ paid? Xhe facts are net in «tlat)ute,

In .^4icLftgO-£i.tle_.anA_.Tru8t Qompgmy^ Trustee, v. galeh_et ajL. ,
the instant oase, a foreeioeure proceeding in the Cirouit eonrt, the
Phillip State Bank aoad 2'ruefc Coaapany was appainted rscelTor of the
Setel Ltt*r*DC«!; thereafter, on June 20, 19S2, the bank filfvd its
first report ^nd aoeouat as such receiver, a»d the court allovred it
|150 to apply on aeeouat ae its fees as reoeiver.

Jujse 21, 1952, tbe bank was closed by the -Editor of Publi©
Aecounts, and thereafter Williaisa L, O'Gomiell was appointed successor*-
receiYer of the bank in the case of People o at rel. Kelson, etc. -y.
fMLl 4p_ Jl»i« A*filt_& JL^PULll^ in the ^perior court of Uoek

00 ant y.

June 25, 1932, Sfalter A, Hagen was a3?peinte<5, in the Circuit
court case, receiver ol the aotel Lawrence as successor to the b-2.nk.


'9 O

. i.8 *» h IJUIXV

. J- 1 til 03

which was uniai« further to aot as receiver.

Wh«st the "bank was clo««d by th.© Auditor It had ijri Its trust
dfftjartirient a crerltt of the M©tel Lawx'enc«« reG«iv«r8hlj* aaiouritiRg- t©
#6(99.77; this la one of Ui« twc funds IktoIvM in this appR».l.

y«bruary 19, 1934, 0' Conn ell filed in tk« Circuit court
9m»9 the filial report i^tci aocourit of the baJiic, as reeeiver of th«
Eoiel h&mvene9 1 "^^ '^^ that rtate ?m order iwas e-rit'»;redl approving
the final re?5ort ■^r.C allowing 0'Cenn*Xl th« furtli^r sum of |150 as
payi^ent In full of all servioes of the harjlc as recelTsr in the
Gireuit court foreolooure suit. Thit? roadie* a total of '^300 allotrod
fttt reeelrer feee in the foreol©sure prooeetling,

0*Gonn*»ll bad in his possession certain scrip and tax war-
rants of th« Hotel Lawrince receivsrehip, a«d on February 19th the
Gireuit court ordered htm to aell them at the higiieat mar&et price
obtainable, mA aft«r |»ayiaent of fees and smy minor expenses necesi-
•&rily ineident to the eloaiag of the estate (the Hotel Lawrence
reee iter ship) he -was to pwy all r«si,ainiag itaneys and property in
this reeexYershlp to Walter A, iiaijfen, suceessor-receiver of the
Sotel l>awrenee, t«lc4«g hie receipt therefor, and thereupon the hacJt,
UM recelTftr in the Cirouit court proceedings, and O'Gonn ell, would bo
dlecwiarged and relieTOd of all further responaihiiity in that case.
Pursuant to this ozAer of th«j court the scrip tmil tax warraujto were
60ld for |®25; this is the other fund inrolved in Uiis appeal,;
©♦Connell deducted therel'r©» the aitiount of |30i), which had been al-
lowed &^ fees, stiit reitdtted the halanse, #625, to Walter A, Hag<m,
auoeessor-receiTer of the hotel.

Xhere&fter, on kcgr IS, 1934, Hagen, as sueee&sor-reeei\er of
the hotftl, filed his petition In the Circuit court in the instant
cuee, oontoKdlag that th» feee of |300 allo-wed tne banic should bo
eredited ag'fiinst the $699*77 of the Hotel JLawrertce account in the
trust dep&rtjj.tjiit of the bank when it wiiu cioeod, and that the aaouut

«)oi;r .. Ja»it3ixi •Hi in ■:«»ni XI»a o;r mln h-^ti&l^tm tttnt ^luvnXO

.i9aA aasa«QX8 TLtnix. \tu: bna B99t to tii§KFittti t^it* ham «*Xfir«al«i^tfe

•tyiWtwBl Ig.tol. «ri*) «tAia« »»* 10 a«l«oX» »ill oi ^n»(>ld.ii yXlTaa

.^ i *,**'* i* - '!.« qlto- -v ■.'•■' "iltli 6^ ' - 0%

• i£ X &<»vXav.ii i>iii.'i iS£i4o «.aJ si sixU j88^ 'is

■ 1* n»%<i &i>* , OO^Sl to fflWdaai s-ii* it#t't9i«rii ^©*oo^»fe ii3.i-;c0'0

••■:c>«Ba«lfti . '-©X ,8X x«- . jiiBiDii.

'■- , ^-'' ' - ' :• '-TO

©f these fees should not be d«duet«4 from |925, th« ©rooeeda of
the sale oi' the scrip and tax warrants, ana ttis Cireuit eourt li&s
rsquested to order O'Uocinell, as receiver oi' the b«jQk, to retura
th« 1300 forthwith to tiis petitioner.

After liearing the Circuit oourt on August 22n^, ordered
that the sum of #300 allowed for senrlces to tiis bank should be
set ©ff again et the sujcei of |699,77 owing Thy the hmtk to the Hotel
Lawrefioe aeeount, an<! that the "bank should creilt itself erid de-
4uet the said $300 from this airmunt, reducing the balance to
#399.77, The court «l0o found that the deduction of the fSOO for
reeei-ver's fees out of the proeeeds of the sale of the tax antici*
l>ation wskrrants was unlawful, and O'Connell, as sueeessor-reoeiver
of the feanJt, was ordered to refund «aad pay to the petitioaer (ii&g«93i)
the sum of #3i}0. O'Connell, aa @uoo«ssor*reeeiver of the bauJc,
ai|iipeal8 from this order.

We are of the opinion that the order was iispropsrly entered,
fhe amount of #699.77 in the banit to tne credit of the Hotel JLaw-
T&xee reeeivershlp was in the possession of tne receiver of the
"bank, appointed by the Saptrior court. It was part of the proper-
ties eoming into the hands of the ^Superior court rt^celTer asd eculd
be paid oat by hisi only upon an order of the Superior court pursu-
aut to a petition filed in tnat court by Eagen, the suoeesBor-
recelTer of the hotel,

SereoTor, the scrip and t^^a. warrants ea^ne into the po^sessiea
of the Circuit court receiver of the Hotel Lawrenee 4^^^ ^* ^11
the property of the hotel cane into possession of its reoeiver,
end was properly subject to the payment of the fees of the

the point involved has been already passed upon by this
eeurt in G hjeajgo Jitle and Trust ae. v. (»oldffiiaB . 272 111. App,
457. I'here the reeeiver of the baak (tae sane ae in the instant

l9 «fc&«»ft'


««^ i:?j^

siocfe©' ; 'to

• ^evlgci PJ3 ,XI»nfloU*0 ttMo ot Jb«*«»'

■ ai>olVT;rr9 lot bdwoXX* )f;» *jBifi

£»« ^ri* to »l»fta*©*r<T »rlJ let Jw© »»ii1r e'tunrl^oftlt
. liftrmoC* . XwtiwiXaii ^n

iftario Oft;}- oi aUwiCf trw wl rp,«^t to <"n«oflw oil?

(uri.: .ota89«'^' qlri«rr»v

-y«tsf<? ^is.^» it6lt»«rKft »rft to t»f«t0 tMt noqu tXa© «iri Y'^ *^» l»ia<r td"

,X»J©if e r3irl*»ooi

,i»vioo»i e;^i lo «©l8«»e80<r oSal •«»o X»^dri »fC* tt Tj*it#(Ttn^ 9ttt

caae) anoeinted by the Superior court was ordered by th.« Cirouit
ooiart to pay a succ«s®or-rec«iv«r in a roreolosure prttGe«3idln,u in

Online LibraryIllinois Appellate CourtIllinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series (Volume Ill. App.v.279) → online text (page 58 of 91)