text:
    Leslie P. Coleman, appellee, v. Herman Heuser, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,379.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    David D. Stansbury and George F. Callaghan, for appellant. A. J. W. Appell, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

license: Public Domain

text:
    Patrick J. O’Keeffe, appellee, v. Abraham Cohen, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,403.

      Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 5, 1932.
    Gustav E. Beerly, for appellant. Enright, Steger & Enright, for appellee; D. Ryan Twomey, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Nora McGlasson, defendant in error, v. Estate of Michael C. Donnellan, deceased, and Estate of John W. Donnellan, deceased, plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 35,414.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Joseph M. Connery and J. J. Cooke, for plaintiffs in error. Michael L. Carmody, for defendant iñ error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Kerner

text:
    R. J. Rehm, complainant, v. Charles E. Verhunce et al., defendants. R. J. Rehm et al., defendants in error, v. Charles E. Verhunce, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,292.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Frederick W. Janson and B. J. Moser, for plaintiff in error. Peden, Murphy & Ryan, for certain defendant in error; John C. Melaniphy and Gerald Ryan, of counsel. Homer Andreas, for certain other defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    George J. Eckhoff, defendant in error, v. John B. Stanton, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,321.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Needham, Hubbard & Mulks, for plaintiff in error. Frank P. Mies, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles Forman et al., complainants, appellees, v. Fred Becklenberg et al., defendants, on appeal of Sol Rubin, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,326.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Edward M. Keating, for appellant. Shulman, Shulman & Abrams, for appellees; Meyer Abrams, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion- of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Nathan M. Freedman, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,330.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first' district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Michael B. Roderick, for plaintiff in error. John A. Swanson, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Cornelius Lynde, plaintiff in error, v. Robert E. Kenyon, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 35,356.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 5, 1932.
    Cassels, Potter & Bentley, for plaintiff in error; Ralph F. Potter and George C. Bunge, of counsel. Alden, Latham & Young, for defendant in error; Hobart P. Young and Francis J. Naphin, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles J. Weber, appellee, v. David E. Cohn and Chicago Gear Manufacturing Company, appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,373.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Gottlieb & Schwartz, for appellants; Ulysses S. Schwartz, Claude A. Roth and Irving T. Zemans, of counsel. Benjamin I. Salinger, Jr., and John F. Tyrrell, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Fred Whaley, defendant in error, v. Felix Rucker, trading as The Royal Cab Company, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,385.
    Heard in the second division .of this court-for the first' district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    John A. Bloomingston, for plaintiff in error. Augustus L. Williams, for defendant in error; George H. Sugrue, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the. court.


text:
    Ann Hathaway, appellee, v. A. R. Shannon, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,394.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Joseph H. Hinshaw, for appellant. Joseph D. Ryan and Louis P. Miller, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Union Bank of Chicago, administrator of the estate of Jeanne Lola Nauman, defendant in error, v. E. A. Kalkhurst et al., defendants. Gertrude Hammes, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,408.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Church, Haft, Robertson, Crowe & Spence, for plaintiff in error; William T. Church and Burt A. Crowe, of counsel. Philip Rosenthal and Stuart P. Krohn, for defendant in error; Stuart B. Krohn, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Bert L. T. Woods, appellant, v. Frank A. Mulholland, appellee.
    Gen. No. 35,415.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    W. F. McLaughlin, for appellant. Deneen, Healy & Lee, for appellee; Harry W. Lippincott and Donald N. Schaffer, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Benjamin Ansehl, appellee, v. Edgewater Beach Hotel Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,450.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    C. E. Heckler, for appellant. Joseph D. Ryan and Edmund M. Sinnott, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Kerner

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Scanlan

text:
    The County of Lake, State of Illinois for use of F. H. Dickson, appellee, v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,052.

      Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the April term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Henry G. Ferncase, for appellant. Sehroeder & Metzger, for appellee; Werner W. Schroeder, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Frank Healy, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,303.
    Heard in the second division o'f this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    John Owen, for plaintiff in error. John A. Swanson, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The White Eagle Building and Loan Association, appellant, v. Estelle Kwiatkowski et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 35,335.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Charles J. Grablowski and Joseph C. Kanak, for appellant. Cavender, Milchrist & Kaiser and T. J. Szmergalski, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John Rybicki, administrator of the estate of Wladyslawa Rybicki, deceased, defendant in error, v. Joseph Kopterski, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,376.
    Heard in the second division ’ of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Joseph F. Elward and Joseph Andrew Lasecki, for plaintiff in error; Joseph F. Elward, of counsel. Melville R. Thomson, for defendant in error; George H. Sugrue, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Arthur V. Goebel and Edward Schatz, appellees, v. David Lipman, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,437.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 5, 1932.
    M. H. Kamerman, for appellant; Clyde C. Fisher, of counsel. Parker, McKeon & Clusman and Theodore Sharf, for appellees; James B. McKeon and Theodore Sharf, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Tillie Felgenhauer, appellant, v. Carl O. Helmer, appellee.
    Gen. No. 35,462.
    Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 23, 1932.
    Eugene Cohen, Murphy O. Tate, Werner W. Schroeder and Theodore W. Schroeder, for appellant. John A. Bloomingston, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

text:
    Sigmund Loeffler, defendant in error, v. Fred Davis et al., plaintiffs in error. August Swarz, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,296.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    August Swarz, pro se. A. A. Schwarzbach, for coplaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Toplis & Harding, Inc., plaintiff in error, v. K. W. Kempf, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 35,390.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    Joseph, A. Huston, for plaintiff in error; Joseph P. Brodie, of counsel. Watkins, Ten Hoor & Gilbert, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph D. Cavanaugh, appellee, v. Lighthouse Barbecue & Oil Stations, Inc. et al., defendants, on appeal of Harry P. E. Hafer, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,521.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    William L. Howard, for appellant. John Owen, for appellee; James C. O’Brien, Jr., of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Helge Erickson, appellee, v. Delbert D. Ehresman et al., appellees. Russell Firebaugh, trustee, appellant, v. Arthur F. Johnson et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 35,530.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.

      McSurely, J., dissents.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    William Sherman Stahl and Morton S. Cressy, for appellant; Preston Clark, of counsel. Ernest A. Eklund and Frederick J. Bertram, for appellee Helge Erickson.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    James H. Hooper, plaintiff in error, v. George Birkenstein, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 35,614.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the December term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    James H. Hooper, pro se. Newburger & Greenbaum, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis Ritt et al. for use of Personal Loan & Savings Bank, appellant, v. Chicago Show Printing Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 35,660.
    Heard in the first division of. this court for the first district at the December term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Reginald C. Darley, for appellant; Oscar G. Wahlgren, of counsel. Rathje, Wesemann, Hinckley & Barnard, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice McSurely

text:
    Mary F. Moore, plaintiff in error, v. Sylvester Graves, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 35,325.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Corinne L. Rice and Simpson & B'aker, for plaintiff in error. Lewis E. :Johnson, for defendant- in error.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John A. Peters, appellee, v. Fred Becklenberg and Wellington Apartment Building Corporation, appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,421.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Cloyes & Klingler, for appellants. Krinsky, Levitan & Glassner, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Eleanor Kosakowski, administratrix of the estate of John Kosakowski, deceased, appellee, v. Pure Farm Products Corporation, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,433.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    Green & Rice, for appellant; Charles E. Green, of counsel. Charles C. Spencer, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis P. O’Connell, appellee, v. Stevens Hotel Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,446.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    O’Connor, P. J., dissents.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Cassels, Potter & Bentley, for appellant; Ralph F. Potter and George C. Bunge, of counsel. W. F. McLaughlin, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Esther du Brin, appellee, v. Calumet Wet Wash Laundries, Inc., appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,500.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    Philip H. Treacy, for appellant. Royal W. Irwin, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Catherine Keessen, appellee, v. William Soenksen, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,657.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the December term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Church, Haft, Robertson, Crowe & Spence, for appellant; Burt A. Crowe, of counsel. Schnackenberg & Hansen, for appellee; Elmer J. Schnackenberg, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Eda Mesirow, appellee, v. Maurice Elias Mesirow, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,695.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at tjie April term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    Levinson, Scher & Rosenfeld, for appellant; I. Harvey Levinson and Louis Rosenfeld, of counsel. Mitchell Edelson and Cameron Latter, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Matchett

text:
    Commercial Light Company, appellee, v. Ben Stevenson, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,378.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Harrold, Quilici & Devitt and E. A. Miller, for appellant; George L. Quilici and Eugene E. Murphy, of counsel. Ringer, Wilhartz & Hirsch and Morris Aronson, for appellee; Sidney J. Wolf, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Mae J. Schindler, appellee, v. Singer Sewing Machine Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,524.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    John A. Bloomingston, for appellant. Arne B. Hummeland, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles Fritz, appellee, v. A. F. Dormeyer Manufacturing Company, successor to MacLeod Manufacturing Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,561.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    George J. Avery, for appellant. Linenthal, Scheyer & Myles, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William David Zimmerman, defendant in error, v. Federal Life Insurance Company, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,628.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the December term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Louks, Eckert & Peterson, for plaintiff in error; William U. Bardwell and Jerome F. Kutak, of counsel. E. R. Elliott, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Matehett

text:
    Louis Brecka, appellee, v. Abram Shatz, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,653.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the December term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 14, 1932.
    Laurence M. Fine, for appellant. J. Paul Dunne, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    R. W. Graham et al., appellee, v. Morris Feldman et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,666.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the December term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    William Feldman, for appellants. Edward P. McKeown, for appellee; John Owen and James C. O’Brien, Jr., of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Nancy Wassman, appellee, v. Chicago Title & Trust Company et al., defendants, on appeal of Edward A. Miller, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,847.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district.
    Opinion filed March 4, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 15, 1932.
    Edward N. Sherburne, for appellant. Cohen, Tomas & Cohen, for appellee; George B. Cohen, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the Court.


text:
    Leslie F. Muter Company, appellee, v. The Muter Company et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,828.
    Heard in the first division of this court for the first district.
    Opinion filed March 11, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 21, 1932.
    Thomas G. Vent, for appellants. Sylvanus George Lee, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Hebel

text:
    Joseph Mensik for use of William J. Dillon and James L. Kostka, his attorneys, appellee, v. John Masek and Josefa Masek, appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,136.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the April term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Rehearing denied and opinion modified March 29, 1932.'
    Myer H. Gladstone, for appellants. William J. Dillon, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebel

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice

text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. John Freeman, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,199.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the June term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Herman Aschin, for plaintiff in error; Elwyn E. Long, of counsel. John A. Swanson, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Otho S. Fasig, Henry T. Chace, Jr., and Edward E. Wilson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice

Hebei delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    A. G. Guerri, appellee, v. Chicago Daily News, Inc., appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,279.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the June term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Fisher, Boyden, Bell, Boyd & Marshall, for appellant; Earl K. Schiek, of counsel. Joseph H. Hinshaw, for appellee; William A. Hanson, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebel

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Chicago Title & Trust Company, appellee, v. Millie Stickler et al., defendants. Broadway Building Corporation, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,701.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Jacobson, Merrick, Nierman & Silbert, for appellant. Kirkland, Fleming, Green & Martin, for appellee; Weymouth Kirkland, V. M. Welsh and A. C. Hamilton, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebel

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Friend

text:
    R. M. LaBelle, appellant, v. George E. Kennedy et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 35,130.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the April term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Monahan & Monahan, for appellant. Charles F. Clyne and Charles J. Monahan, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    A. R. Price and S. Price, appellees, v. South Shore State Bank, appellee, on appeal of Ninian H. Welch and Sol A. Hoffman, appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,139.

      Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the April term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Ninian H. Welch and Sol A. Hoffman, pro se. William Feldman, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    J. Wasserman and A. Millner, trading as Wasserman & Millner, appellants, v. Mrs. Anna Mulvaney, also known as A. E. Mulvaney, appellee.
    Gen. No. 35,160.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the April term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Sidney Rosenblum, for appellants. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Law Gow, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,202.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the June term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Charles A. Wagner, for plaintiff in error; Elwyn E. Long, of counsel. John A. Swanson, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Otho S. Fasig, Henry T. Chace, Jr., and Edward E. Wilson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    James A. Malcom, appellant, v. L. A. Grafno, appellee.
    Gen. No. 35,223.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the June term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 29, 1932.
    Julius S. Neale, for appellant; Bernard W. Vinissky, of counsel. Miller, Gorham & Wales, for appellee; Edward R. Adams and Herbert C. DeYoung, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William F. Bisson, appellee, v. Joseph H. Beuttas et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,232.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the June term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Church, Haft, Robertson & Crowe, for appellants; Burt A. Crowe, of counsel. H. H. Patterson and Harry F. Payer, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Georgia Richman, appellee, v. Chicago Rapid Transit Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,386.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 29, 1932.
    Gardner, Foote, Burns & Morrow, for appellant; Walter M. Fowler and William G. Wood, of counsel. Philip Rosenthal, for appellee; John B. King, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Smith Brothers, Inc., appellee, v. Thompson Ice Cream Company and Kahn Bros. Hay & Grain Company, appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,469.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    John Clark Baker, for appellants; William G. Shane, of counsel. Isador Becker and Albert B. Fritzshal, for appellee; Albert B. Fritzshal, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Chicago Title and Trust Company, appellee, v. Bernice Rothenberg et al., defendants, on appeal of Isadore Laskin, sued under the name and description of “Unknown Owners,’’ appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,825.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Maurice L. Davis, for appellant. Litsinger, Healy, Reid & Bye, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joe Gerstein, appellee, v. George Milonas et al., defendants, on appeal of Anna Riha, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,859.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district. Dismissed.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 29, 1932.
    Daniel L. Madden, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Wilson

text:
    Aaron Falstein, trading as Acme Leather Company, appellee, v. Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,249.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the June term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    England, Dodge & O’Toole, for appellant; Clifton M. Kolb, of counsel. Ryan, Condon & Livingston, for appellee; David J. Greenberg and John M. Tuohy, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Union Bank of Chicago, administrator of the estate of Stella Jaworsky, defendant in error, v. William J. Hoey, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 35,358.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    John A. Bloomingston, for plaintiff in error. John H. Kay, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Oscar B. McGlasson, appellee, v. Harry W. Sehl, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,377.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Albert O. Olson, for appellant. Joseph A. Fenton, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ruth Liddy, appellee, v. Pushman Bros., appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,397.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, •1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    Church, Haft, Robertson, Crowe & Spence, for appellant; Burt A. Crowe, of counsel. Joseph D. Ryan and Louis P. Miller, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Filmore Paint Company, appellee, v. Ph. M. Mosheik, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,426.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    George L. Lewis, for appellant; Clyde C. Fisher, of counsel. Holland & Shuchter, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Tully LaTessa and P. Yrigoyen, trading as LaTessa Wood Carving Company, appellees, v. The Merit Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 35,463.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    J. Kentner Elliott, for appellant. Cassels, Potter & Bentley, for appellees; Raymond W. Hamill, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William C. Diercks, appellant, v. Herman Schuessler, Jr., and Julius Weiss, appellees.
    Gen. No. 35,529.
    Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 16, 1932.
    William T. Pridmore, for appellant. Ferdinand J. Karasek, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

text:
    John A. Logan Warren, appellee, v. Judd Van Sickle et al., appellants.
    Second District.
    Gen. No. 8,283.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1930.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Welsh & Welsh, for appellants. Knight, Swenson & Penny and Gus S. Brown, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    McWilliams Land Company, appellant, v. Lake View State Bank, administrator of the estate of D. S. Myers, deceased, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,374.
    Heard in this court at the May term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Greenebaum & Burns, for appellant. Donovan, Bray & Gray, for appellee; Thomas F. Donovan, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Baldwin

text:
    Thomas J. Ryan, appellee, v. Chauncey C. Landon, trading as Landon New System Dentists, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,368.

      Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    John E. Cassidy, for appellant. Wallace J. Black and Clyde M. West, for appellee; Edward E. Gale, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Charles Spesia, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 8,393.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    R. D. Robinson and Irvin R. Wasson, for plaintiff in error. R. C. Rice, State’s Attorney, and S. M. Meadows, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Second National Bank of Freeport, Illinois, appellant, v. E. L. Griffith et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 8,398.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    C. W. Middlekauff, for appellant. Mitchell & Wilson, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Hattie Rummell, appellee, v. The Day Carpet & Furniture Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,410.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Clarence W. Heyl, for appellant; Heyl & Heyl, of counsel. John E. Cassidy, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Service Sand & Gravel Company, appellant, v. E. W. Larson et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 8,423.
    Heard- in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Welsh & Welsh, for appellant. William L. Pierce and Harry B. North, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John Franklin Brown and Charles S. Brown, minors, by their mother and next friend, Luellen Brown, appellants, v. Ottawa Silica Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,426.

      Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    William Zwanzig, for appellants. Duncan & O’Conor, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles J. O’Neill and Eugene T. O’Neill, trading as O’Neill Brothers, appellants, v. Louis Salzman, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,433.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    L. B. Bratton and W. H. Dyer, for appellants. Walter C. Schneider, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Carlo Bartolucci, appellee, v. Fort Dearborn Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,443.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    North, Linscott, Gibboney & North, for appellant. Hinchcliff, Miller & Thomas, for appellee; Charles A. Thomas, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis Goesswein, appellee, v. George Jochem et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 8,447.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    George Jochem, Mary D. Cassell and Earl B. Williamson, pro se. Ira J. Covey and Edwin L. Covey, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Marie L. Williams, appellee, v. Aurora, Elgin & Fox River Electric Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,453.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Alschuler, Putnam, Flannigen & Johnson, for appellant; W. C. O’Brien, of counsel. John A. Russell, for appellee; Allen B. Woodard and, Charles G. Seidel, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Elsie M. Seablom, appellee, v. Harold S. Bradley, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,464.

      Heard in, this court at the October term, 1931. Reversed with a finding of fact.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Large & Reno and W. J. Berry, for appellant. Edward L. MeCleneghan, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Wolfe

text:
    The Mound Grove Cemetery Association of Kankakee City, appellee, v. George M. Dilley and Kankakee Individual Mausoleum Company, appellants.
    Gen. No. 8,437.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Butz & Taylor, Miller & Shapiro and Brown, Hay & Stephens, for appellants. Gower, Gray & Gower, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Max Englestein, trading as The Peoples Store, appellant, v. Irene Meitinger, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,472.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Large & Reno and James Berry, for appellant. B. A. Knight, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Per curiam.

text:
    Czilli Czecz, appellee, v. The New Era Association, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,298.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1930.
    Opinion filed February 18, 1932.
    Musgrave, Oppenheim, Price & Ewins, for appellant. George R. Warner and D. J. Peffers, for appellee.
   Per curiam.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Ray Null, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 8,356.
    Heard in this court at the May term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 24, 1932.
    H. A. Brooks and Edward A. Jones, for plaintiff in error. Mark C. Keller, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Robert Jones, administrator of the estate of Robert W. Jones, deceased, appellee, v. Charles S. Mellen, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,422.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 24, 1932.
    Eagleton & Eagleton, for appellant. Robert N. McCormick, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lena Gill, appellee, v. North American Union, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,428.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 24, 1932.
    Maloney & Wooster and James W. Carney, for appellant. Marsh, Lewis, Thompson & Barash, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of. the court.


text:
    Citizens State Bank of Prophetstown, Illinois, appellant, v. First National Bank of Erie, Illinois et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 8,432.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 24, 1932.
    Harry E. Brown and Arthur G. Higgs, for appellant. Schroder & Scott and Joseph L. Shaw, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion'of the court.


text:
    Ella Coy, appellee, v. Frances E. Cutright, appellant, and Harry Baur.
    Gen. No. 8,436.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 24, 1932.
    Robert N. McCormick and Shelton F. McGrath, for appellant. John E. Cassidy, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Collette Radlebeck, by Joseph Radlebeck, her next friend, defendant in error, v. Jeanette Zara, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 8,110.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1929.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Mary Doubet Cassell and George J. Jochem, for plaintiff in error. Francis C. Vonachen, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Edward G. Schottler et al., plaintiffs in error, v. M. G. Ferguson et al., defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 8,318.
    Heard in this court at the February term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Peden, Murphy & Ryan, for plaintiffs in error; John C. Melaniphy, Willis Overholser and J. Homer Andreas, of counsel. Jack Bairstow, for certain defendants in error. Litchfield & Snyder, for certain other defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    George Lauffer, plaintiff in error, v. Al Steel, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 8,330.
    Heard in this court at the February term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Albert H. Krusemark, for plaintiff in error. Frank G. Brumund and Charles M. Robson, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    August Degner, appellant, v. Charles W. Jeanblanc, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,351.
    Heard in this court at the May term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Willard F. Hawthorn and Elwin M. Bunnell, for appellant; James W. Watts and Martin J. Gannon, of counsel. E. E. Wingert, for appellee; A. G. Harris, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Esther Robson Parrish, plaintiff in error, v. Herman Parrish, defendant in error. Herman Parrish, cross complainant, defendant in error, v. Esther Robson Parrish, cross defendant, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 8,355.
    Heard in this court at the May term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Vincent J. Root and John W. Fling, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Brian & McManus, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lee Wadleigh, appellee, v. John Karcher, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,420.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    John P. Pallissard and Claude M. Granger, for appellant. Malo & Bell and Miller & Shapiro, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Andrew Aroch, administrator of the estate of Stephen Aroch, deceased, appellee, v. Chicago & Joliet Transportation Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,445.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Barr & Barr, for appellant. J. W. D’Arey, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Thomas J. O’Meara, administrator of the estate of Charles L. Elward, deceased, appellant, v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,449.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Richolson & O’Meara, for appellant. Hibbs & Pool, for appellee; Daniel Taylor, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Adam Mixes, appellee, v. Keig-Stevens Baking Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,452.
    presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Welsh & Welsh and Hyer & Gill, for appellant. Hall & Dusher, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    C. O. Holmberg et al., trading as Highland Lumber & Fuel Company, appellants, v. Erick Lundquist et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 8,463.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed March 15, 1932.
    Large & Reno and James Berry, for appellants. B. A. Knight, for certain appellees. Wilbur E. Johnson, for certain other appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Eldredge

text:
    Jane Chumard, appellee, v. Frank N. Goodman et al., trading as Parlor Market, appellants.
    Third District.
    Gen. No. 8,597.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1932.
    C. C. Martin and F. R. Wiley, for appellants. Whitley & Fitzgerald and Arthur F. Delahunty, for appellee; John R. Fitzgerald, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

text:
    C. A. Callan, defendant in error, v. William C. Hiberly, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 8,544.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 15, 1932.
    Earl S. Hodges, for plaintiff in error. Logan G. Griffith and McDavid, Monroe & Mann, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

text:
    Henry Nicklas, Jr., plaintiff in error, v. J. O. McCormick et al., defendants in error.
    Fourth District.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 4, 1932.
    Henry Nicklas, pro se. P. K. Johnson, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    W. C. Clark and H. G. Modes, trading as W. C. Clark & Company, appellants, v. Hoering-Buchholz Company, Inc., and W. H. Neerman, appellees.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1931.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 4, 1932.
    Chapman & Du Hadway, for appellants; Jack McDonald, of counsel. J. P. Streuber, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Edwards

text:
    William Schwarz, appellee, v. Sarah A. Rebhan, executrix of the estate of Edward L. Rebhan, deceased, appellant.
    Heard in this court at the October term; 1931.
    Opinion filed February 29, 1932.
    Rehearing denied March 30, 1932.
    W. E. Knowles, for appellant. P. O. Otwell, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Edwards

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Samuel J. Richman, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph E. Menrath, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 35,644.

      Opinion filed March 28, 1932.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for plaintiff in error.
    George H. Kriete, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

June 21,1930, plaintiff, as landlord, caused judgment by confession to be entered against the defendant, as tenant, for $7,616.68, which included $500 attorney’s fees. September 8, 1930, the defendant filed a written motion, supported by a petition and affidavit to vacate and open up the judgment and for leave to defend. The matter was continued from time to time and the defendant given leave to file two additional affidavits in support of his motion, and on January 2, 1931, the motion came on for hearing and was denied. Thereupon the defendant prayed an appeal to this court, which was allowed upon the defendant filing his bond for $9,000 within 30 days and bill of exceptions within 60 days. The defendant did not file the bond to perfect the appeal nor the bill of exceptions, and on February 12, 1931, an execution was served upon him by the sheriff notifying defendant that he must file a schedule of his property which he claimed to be exempt within 10 days. Afterwards the defendant filed such schedule and the execution was returned by the sheriff no part satisfied. On June 25, an alias execution was issued, a demand made and the execution returned no part satisfied. On November 25,1931, the defendant moved the court for leave to file an amended bill of exceptions nunc pro tunc as of January 2, 1931. The motion was supported by the affidavit of counsel for the defendant. The court on December 11 denied the motion holding that he then had no jurisdiction to approve the so-called amended bill of exceptions and to permit it to be filed. Afterwards, the defendant tendered his bill of exceptions which was approved and filed. It shows inter alia his motion of September 8, 1930, and the petition and affidavits in support thereof.

Plaintiff has made a motion to strike the bill of exceptions and the motion was reserved to the hearing. The motion must be denied because the only way it could be made to appear of record what had taken place on September 8, 1930, and subsequently, was by bill of exceptions. We think the court was right in denying the defendant’s motion to file the so-called bill of exceptions nunc pro tunc as of January 2, 1931. Contrary to the statement of defendant’s counsel no bill of exceptions was filed within the 60 days allowed by the court on January 2, 1931. After the lapse of the 60 days the court lost jurisdiction. The case of Pralle v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 252 Ill. App. 460, affirmed in 346 Ill. 58, chiefly relied hpon by counsel for the defendant is not in point. In that case a bill of exceptions had been properly approved and filed; it did not, however, show that a motion for new trial had been made and overruled. Afterwards an amended bill of exceptions, which showed that such motion had been made and overruled, was approved and filed and the Supreme Court held there was sufficient memorandum in the judgment order to show that a motion for a new trial was made and overruled, to warrant the approval of the amended bill of exceptions. In the instant case there was no bill of exceptions filed within the 60 days and it is obvious therefore that the Pralle case is not in point. There being no bill of exceptions in the record filed pursuant to the order of January 2,1931, the case on this writ of error must be disposed of on the common law record.

The defendant contends that the judgment order entered June 21, 1931, is fatally defective because it is not in conformity with the declaration and recitals in the cognovit in that it is not specified in the order in whose favor, nor against whom, the judgment is to be entered. The difficulty with this contention is that Avhat counsel refers to as the judgment order is but a mere memorandum on the back of the declaration, signed by the court, and is not the judgment order. The judgment order, written up by the clerk in conformity with the memorandum, is in the usual and ordinary form. The further contention of the defendant is that the warrant of attorney authorizing the confession of judgment against the two tenants, Carl H. Upmeyer and Joseph E. Menrath, did not authorize a judgment to be entered against one of the tenants. But the difficulty with this contention is that it is not in accordance with the allegations of the declaration. It is alleged in the declaration that the warrant of attorney authorized that a judgment be confessed against the tenants “jointly and severally” and in these circumstances, the court, upon proper shoAving, Avas warranted in entering judgment against Menrath, one of the tenants.

A further point is made by the defendant that since it is made to appear by affidavit in this case that in the case of Menrath v. Riehman, 262 Ill. App. 639 (Abst.), opinion filed June 22, 1931, Gen. No. 34,614, which involved the same lease, Ave held the lease in the instant ease was terminated, the judgment in the instant case being for rent covered by a period of time after the termination of the lease, the judgment here should be reversed, and therefore we should consider the record, abstracts, briefs and opinion filed in Gen. No. 34,614. In the opinion filed- in that case, the landlord, who was defendant there, filed a cross-bill seeking to recover "rent for the premises involved in the case before us and the chancellor there dismissed the cross-bill. We there said: “It was discretionary with the chancellor as to whether he should retain the defendants’ cross-bill for the purpose of adjudicating defendants’ claim for rent, suit having theretofore been brought by the defendants, which suit was then pending. ’ ’ From this quotation we think it clear that it was not held in case Gen. No. 34,614, that the lease was terminated. We said that since there was another suit pending by the landlord against the tenant to recover rent, the court in its discretion was authorized to dismiss the cross-bill without disposing of the landlord’s claim for rent.

If defendant would be relieved from paying the rent for a period of time after he contends the lease was terminated, as shown by the opinion filed in case Gen. No. 34,614, he must seek his relief in' another forum.

The judgment of the circuit court of Cook county is affirmed.

Affirmed.

MoSurely and Matchett, JJ., concur.


text:
    Catherine Wood, Appellee, v. MacLean Drug Company et al., Defendants. MacLean Drug Company et al., Appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,651.

      Opinion filed March 28, 1932.
    Emil C. Wetten, for appellants.
    Gottlieb & Schwartz, for appellee; Ulysses S. Schwartz and Claude A. Both, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court:

By this appeal defendants Harry E. White and Fred S. White seek to reverse a decree entered by the circuit court of Cook county whereby they were decreed to pay to the complainant, Catherine Wood, $317,910 with interest at 5 per cent from July 2, 1929.

The record discloses that on July 2, 1929, complainant filed her bill against the defendants claiming that the defendants Harry E. White and Fred S. White had conspired to defraud her of 500 shares of the capital stock of the defendant MaeLean Drug Company; that about August 8,1928, the two Whites, who were officers and directors and controlled the affairs of the Mac-Lean Drug Company, caused the MaeLean Drug Company to purchase complainant’s 500 shares of stock for $200 a share when the stock was worth more than $800 a share. The defendants Harry and Fred White filed an answer and denied all charges of wrongdoing.

The case was referred to a master in chancery who took the evidence, made up his report and found that the two Whites had defrauded the complainant, their aunt, and recommended that a decree be entered in complainant’s favor. The decree was substantially in accordance with the master’s report. It found that in the purchase of complainant’s 500 shares of stock she was defrauded of $317,910, and it was decreed that the defendants Harry E. and Fred S. White pay this sum to her; it was further found that defendant Archibald M. Wood, son of complainant and an officer and director of the MaeLean Drug Company, was not guilty of any fraud in the matter, but that he had received $47,911.74 more from the proceeds of the 500 shares of stock than he would have received had the sale been fairly made, and it was decreed that he pay this sum to complainant, but not in addition to the $317,910.

It appears from the evidence that Alexander Mac-Lean started in the drug business in Chicago- and formed a corporation for that purpose in 1908, the capital stock being $10,000, of which he owned 49 of the 100 shares. The business grew and the capital was increased from time to time and new drug stores were opened by the drug company. Alexander MaeLean dominated the company until he sold out his interests January 1,1924, to George R. Wood, Ms brother-in-law and husband of complainant, and his two nephews, Harry E. and Fred S. White. At that time the drug company operated about 15 drug stores in Chicago. Harry E. White, Fred S. White and George R. Wood came to Chicago and were employed by the drug company during the years 1910 and 1911. George R. Wood died January 13, 1927, and his 400 shares of stock in the drug company were bequeathed to the complainant, his widow. At the time in question there were 1,713 shares of common stock in the MaeLean Drug Company, held as follows: Harry White 567 shares, Fred White 335 shares, Archibald Wood 186 shares, Alice White, wife of Harry E., 97 shares, Nina White, wife of Fred S., 28 shares, Mrs. Catherine Wood 500 shares.

For some time prior to the death of George R. Wood in January, 1927, Harry E. and Fred S. White, Archibald Wood and George R. Wood, his father, were all stockholders and were employed by the drug company at substantial salaries. George R. Wood was drawing $12,000 a year. Since 1923 it was the policy of the company to pay no dividends on the common stock, but a great part of the earnings were from time to time invested in opening new stores. At the time in question Harry E. White was president, Fred S. White vice president, and Archibald Wood secretary and treasurer of the company; they were also directors, and the business was dominated by the Whites. After George R. Wood died Harry E. White’s salary was raised from $15,000 to $20,000, Fred S. White’s from $10,800 to $15,000, and Archibald Wood’s from $8,000 to $10,000 a year.

The evidence further shows that Catherine Wood after the death of her husband had very little income; that the principal part of her property was the 500 shares of stock of the drug company, on which no dividends were being paid. She was desirous of disposing of her stock to the company or to the Whites and the matter was taken up with them by Mrs. Wood; later her brother, the founder of the drug company, Alexander MacLean, came to Chicago and endeavored to induce the Whites, or the drug company, to buy Mrs. Wood’s stock. From time to time such negotiations were had by Mrs. Wood through her attorneys, D’Ancona & Pflaum. The Whites agreed to pay the book value of the stock and this was ascertained to be somewhat in excess of $200 a share. A number of draft agreements were prepared whereby complainant was to receive about $12,000 in cash and $100,000 of preferred stock, and there was a provision in these tentative agreements that in case the drug stores were sold within a year Mrs. Wood was to receive her share as though she still owned the stock. When the final draft of the agreement to purchase and sell the 500 shares of stock was prepared it was suggested that instead of paying for the stock in preferred stock and $12,000 cash, Mrs. Wood be paid $100,000 in cash. After considering this proposition for about a day it was accepted by Mrs. Wood, and on August 9 there was a special meeting of the directors of the drug company, at which Harry E. White, Fred S. White and Archibald M. Wood, being a majority of the directors, were present. A resolution was unanimously passed that the MacLean Drug Company purchase the 500 shares of stock of Catherine Wood for $100,000 in cash. Thereupon the drug company borrowed $50,000 and through the sale of securities obtained the other $50,000. On August 11, the money was paid to Mrs. Wood and the stock delivered by her. Thereupon she left- for California to visit a sister who was seriously ill.

About the time of this sale the Liggett Company, which was operating a large chain of drug stores in this country, entered into negotiations for the purchase of the MacLean drug stores, and Archibald Wood, on August 22, notified his mother in California of this fact. Negotiations with the Liggett Company resulted in the sale of the stores on September 29, 1928. The sale was for approximately a million and a half dollars. Afterwards most of the proceeds of the sale were distributed among the two Whites and Archibald Wood according to the number of shares held by them, the two Whites receiving the proceeds represented by the stock held by their respective wives.

The master found from the evidence that after payment of certain bills and expenses there was $1,431,764.59, or $835.82 per share to be distributed to the Whites and Archibald Wood: Most of this has been distributed. Included in the above sum was an item of $18,681.05 which the two Whites and Archibald Wood had divided among themselves according to the number of shares of stock held by each. This money, which was in the nature of rebates, had been paid by an ice cream company and a coffee concern, both of which sold their produce to concessionaires of the Mac-Lean drug stores. These rebates had been paid for a number of years, and George R. Wood during his lifetime obtained a share, but after his death all of the rebates, as stated, were divided among the Whites and Archibald Wood. The master found that these moneys belonged to the MacLean Drug Company, and we think rightfully so, and that Mrs. Wood was entitled to share in the $18,681.05.

Mrs. Wood upon being advised in August, 1928, of the proposed sale of the stores to the Liggett Company, did nothing to repudiate the sale of her stock and made no complaint. She came back to Chicago in the spring of 1929 and employed counsel, who after investigating the facts filed the bill on July 2, 1929.

The evidence further shows that in the fall of 1927, and in the spring of 1928, the Walgreen Company, which also operates a large chain of drug stores, entered into negotiations with the MacLean Company with a view of purchasing its stores, and while no agreement was reached, we think the evidence shows that the Walgreen Company made a tentative offer to pay about $600 a share for the common stock of the MacLean Company. It further appears that about May, 1928, the Whelan Drug Company, a subsidiary of the United Cigar Stores Company of America, approached the Whites with a view of buying the drug stores of the MacLean Company; that negotiations were carried on for some time; that White said the MacLean Company wanted $1,500,000 for the stores and that the Whelan Company made a tentative offer of about $1,250,000. About the same time two Chicago lawyers who represented the Liggett Company, but who did not disclose this fact, approached the Whites with a view of buying' the MacLean stores. The Whites refused to deal with them unless they knew who their principals were, and about August 8 these lawyers again took the matter up with the Whites and stated they represented the Liggett Company, and negotiations were then carried on until the stores were sold, as above stated, September 29, 1928.

The evidence all shows that neither Archibald Wood nor his mother, the complainant, knew anything about these several negotiations for the sale of the stores. The Whites were the only ones connected with the MacLean Drug Company who had such negotiations and they did not disclose the facts to anyone, although the evidence shows that on a number of occasions Archibald Wood asked the Whites if the stores were to be sold and was advised that they were not and that there were no negotiations pending at the time of the purchase of Mrs. Wood’s stock in August. All of the evidence shows that the first information Archibald Wood had of any of these proposed purchases was about the time he wrote his mother August 22, 1928, and that was the first time she learned the fact.

The Whites take the position, and they so testify, that they did not consider when they were approached by Walgreens, Whelan, the two lawyers .and the Liggets that these were negotiations but more in the nature of parties endeavoring, to ascertain whether the stores might be bought, and that no specific offers were made by .these parties for the stores.- But we think the evidence justifies the finding that the three parties were negotiating for. the purchase of the stores and made rather tangible ,and specific offers for them. There is a conflict in the evidence as to-whether the Whites induced Archibald Wood to use his influence with his mother to sell her stock to the MaeLean Company. Wood gave testimony by deposition taken in California that the Whites had induced him to try to influence his mother to sell the stock, while the White’s testimony is to the contrary; and further^that Mrs. Wood, their aunt, was pressing them for months to buy her stock.- There is considerable evidence outside of the'testimony of the Whites to the same effect. It is undisputed that she spoke to one of the Whites about selling her stock, and later her brother, Alexander MaeLean, the founder of the Drug Company, endeavored to have the company or the Whites buy her stock and she retained able counsel in this behalf. But in the view we take of the case, we think this question is not of controlling importance because we are of the opinion that it was the duty of the company and the directors in^contxoLpf it to disclose all thefacts to Mrs. Wood with reference to the value of the stock, and that Walgreen, Whelan and Liggetts had been inquiring about the purchase of the drug stores.

The MaeLean Drug Company was practically a family affair, owned and controlled by the two Whites, nephews of complainant, and her son Archibald. Mrs. Wood had little or no business experience. The book value of the stock would not.disclose what the stock might be sold for. There was naturally no record kept by the MacLean Company of the fact that a number of substantial concerns were negotiating to purchase the stores.

Under the facts, in this case we are of the opinion that when the Whites, as directors of the MacLean Drug Company, together with Archibald Wood, passed the resolution authorizing the purchase of Mrs. Wood’s stock, they were acting as trustees for the drug company, for Mrs. Wood and other stockholders,- and therefore it was their duty to disclose all the facts. Hooker v. Midland Steel Co., 215 Ill. 444; sec. 2270, vol. 4, Fletcher Cyc. Corporations; Strong v. Repide, 213 U. S. 419; Dawson v. National Life Ins. Co. of America, 176 Iowa 362.

In the Hooker case, Hooker, a ■ stockholder of the Midland Steel Co., sold his stock in the company to Ross J. Beatty, the president of the company, for an inadequate price, and it was alleged that Hooker was unable to determine the reasonable value of his stock through the action of Beatty in failing to disclose the facts. The court said it was the apparent purpose of the bill to hold the status so as to ascertain the facts, that plaintiff might determine at his leisure “whether it would be more profitable to him to retain the money (he had received for the stock) and let Beatty keep the stock or accept the offer. . . . We do not think that a court of equity is to be used merely for the purpose of enabling complainant to determine whether he can make more money by affirming or disaffirming the sale”; and the dismissal of the bill was affirmed. The court there further said (pp. 450-451): “It is contended that Beatty, being the president and director of the Midland Steel Company, was a trustee for the complainant as a stockholder, and was therefore in a fiduciary and confidential relation requiring him to disclose all such facts within his knowledge, and that he could not retain a benefit acquired by a breach of that duty or use knowledge in his possession1 to obtain a bargain from the complainant. The management of the business and property of a corporation is entrusted to its officers, and they are empowered to act for the whole body of stockholders. They therefore occupy the position of trustees for the stockholders as a body in respect to such business and property, and cannot have or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such trustees. A director, however, does not sustain that relation to an individual stockholder with respect to his stock, over which he has no control whatever, but he may deal with an individual stockholder and purchase his stock practically on the same terms as a stranger.” And the court continuing, quoted from Cook on Stock and Stockholders as follows: ‘ ‘ ‘ There is no confidential relation between him and a stockholder, so far as a sale of the stock between them is concerned, and so long as he remains silent and does not actively mislead the person with whom he deals the transaction cannot be set aside for fraud.’ Beatty did not sustain such a trust relation to the complainant, as an individual stockholder, as would prevent him, in the absence of actual fraud, from purchasing the stock.” In that case it will be noted that the president of the company, who was a director, individually bought Hooker’s stock for himself. He was not acting for the corporation nor as a director of the corporation, and therefore the court held that there was no trust relationship between them in the transaction. But it will also be noted from the quotation above, that if Beatty was acting as a director of the corporation in the purchase of the stock, there would be a trust relationship between him and Hooker, the stockholder. As quoted, the board of directors when acting as such “occupy the position of trustees for the stockholders as a body . . . and cannot have or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such trustees.”

Iii the instant case, when the boárd of directors of the MacLean Drug Company, acting as such board, bought Mrs. Wood’s stock, not for the individual directors personally but for the MacLean Drug Company, a corporation, they were acting in their official capacities as directors, and under the law as stated in the Hooker case, we think they were acting as trustees for Mrs. Wood and were in duty bound to advise her of all the facts; not having done so, she is entitled to recover the balance of the value of her 500 shares.

In Fletcher’s Cyclopedia Corporations it is said, sec. 2270: 11 Sometimes it is said that a director or other managing officer is a trustee in so far as the corporation and its stockholders are concerned, and sometimes it is said that he is a trustee only as to the corporation itself. However, the better rule seems to be that he is a trustee for an individual stockholder, as well as the corporation, at least in a limited sense. Thus, Justice Lamar, in a Georgia decision, said that the fact that a director is a trustee for all the stockholders ‘is not to be perverted into holding that he is under no obligation to each. The fact that he must serve the company does not warrant him in becoming the active and successful opponent of an individual stockholder with reference to the latter’s undivided interest in the very property committed to the director’s care. That he is primarily trustee for the corporation is not intended to make the artificial entity a fetich to be worshipped in the sacrifice of those who, in the last analysis, are the real parties at interest. No process of reasoning and no amount of argument can destroy the fact that the director is, in a most important and legitimate sense, trustee for the stockholder. . . . Not a strict trustee, for he does not hold title to the shares, not even a strict trustee who is practically prohibited from dealing with his cestui que trust; but a quasi trustee as to the shareholder’s interest in the shares,’ ”

And in Strong v. Repide, 213 U. S. 419, it was held that even though a director of a corporation may not be under the obligation of a fiduciary nature to' disclose to a stockholder his knowledge affecting the value of the shares of stock, yet that duty may exist in special cases. There the plaintiff owned 800 shares of the stock of a company in the Philippines and the defendant owned about three-fourths of the stock. He was one of five directors and was the general administrator of the company. The United States Government was proposing to buy lands owned by the company, which would greatly enhance the value of the stock, but the facts were not disclosed to the stockholders and it was held that such a sale might be set aside at the suit-of the stockholder who did not get the value of her stock. The court there said, p. 431: “If it were conceded, for the purpose of the argument, that the ordinary relations between directors and shareholders in a business corporation are not of such a fiduciary nature ■ as to make-it the duty of a director to disclose to a shareholder the general knowledge which he may possess regarding the value of the shares of the company before he purchases any from a shareholder, yet there are cases where, by reason of the special facts, such duty exists.” And in that case the court held there were such special circumstances.

In the instant case the Whites, having failed to disclose the fact that negotiations had been pending for some time with three companies conducting chain drug stores,, ought not be permitted to take advantage of Mrs. Wood under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence.

The Whites further contend that the decree is wrong and should be reversed because the complainant was guilty of laches. We think this contention cannot be sustained. While it'is true complainant learned of the impending sale of the drug stores to Liggetts in: August, 19.28, after she had gone to California to see her sister who was there ill,' and did not take any action in the matter until about. seven months afterwards, when she returned to Chicago and employed counsel and about three months later filed the suit, yet we think this ought not to bar her, because under the law the length of time that elapses before a party asserts his rights, which would show the party was guilty of laches, varies with the particular circumstances of each case. Schultz v. O’Hearn, 319 Ill. 244. Under the facts disclosed by the evidence, we think the delay did not so prejudice the rights of the Whites as to bar the complainant from maintaining her suit. No rights of third parties have intervened,' and we think the defendants ought to be required to pay the complainant what her stock sold for.

Complaint is also made that the court erred in decreeing a permanent injunction against the escrow fund which was a part of the proceeds derived from the sale of the drug stores to the Liggetts and placed in escrow.. The preliminary injunction was issued in respect to this same fund and on appeal to this court we affirmed the order awarding the preliminary injunction. Wood v. MacLean Drug Co., 262 Ill. App. 644 (Abst.). We think the facts that were before us on the preliminary injunction are not materially.. different from the facts before us on this appeal, and for the reasons stated in the opinion which we heretofore filed on the appeal from the preliminary order, we think the injunction was properly made permanent.

The decree of the circuit court of Cook county is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McSurely and Matohett, JJ., concur.


text:
    Jessie Hunt, Appellant, v. Olive Morris, Individually, and as Executrix Under the Last Will and Testament of John Barnes, Deceased, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 35,720.

      Opinion filed March 28, 1932.
    William H. Herbert and Charles Goodman, for appellant; Charles Goodman, of counsel.
    Bradley, Harper & Kiggins and Joseph H. Nicolai, for appellee; Thomas E. D. Bradley and Samuel A. Harper, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Complainant filed her bill seeking to set aside the will of John Barnes, deceased, alleging that she was his daughter and only heir at law. The issue of this relationship was heard by the chancellor who held that she was not his daughter and heir at law and hence was not “person interested,” to which class of persons the right to contest the validity of a will is limited by section 7, chapter 148, Statute of Wills, Cahill’s St. ch. 148, fi 7, her bill was ordered dismissed and she appeals from this order. The section under which the proceeding was brought is, in part, as follows :

“That if any person interested shall within one (1) year after the probate of any such will, testament or codicil in the County Court as aforesaid, appear and by his or her bill in chancery contest the validity of the same, an issue at law shall be made up whether the writing produced be the will of the testator or testatrix or not, which shall be tried by a jury in the Circuit Court of the county wherein such will, testament or codicil shall have been proven and recorded as aforesaid, according to the practice in courts of chancery in similar cases. . . .”

The crucial question is whether the evidence adduced proved that complainant was the daughter of John Barnes, deceased. Complainant offered in evidence the record of the probate court, finding* that she was an heir at law and next of kin of John Barnes, deceased, and also (both counsel assert) all the evidence that was introduced in the probate court upon this matter.

Complainant in this court asserts that the order of the probate court finding that complainant was an heir at law is res adjudicata. As stated in her brief, that “No matter how erroneous that finding may have been, or even absurd — though it may have been made in palpable violation of the law and manifestly against the evidence or wholly unsupported by the evidence — it is nevertheless binding upon the defendant unless reversed on appeal or in a direct proceeding instituted to set it aside.” There are two sufficient answers to this. The issue of res adjudicata was not raised in the pleadings. Complainant did not allege that the order in the probate court was res adjudicata. A sworn plea and answer was filed denying her heirship and denying that she was a “person interested in the will.” No replication was filed to the sworn answer. A bill to contest a will is a chancery proceeding. Anderson v. Anderson, 293 Ill. 565. In equity when res adjudicata is relied upon it must be pleaded. Williams v. Williams, 265 Ill. 64.

A second and more definite answer is found in section 3 of the Administration Act (Cahill’s Rev. St. ch. 3, if 148) which provides, “That such orders of the court, declaring such heirship, whether heretofore or hereafter made, shall be deemed and taken as prima facie evidence of such heirship: Provided, that any other legal mode of proving such heirship may be resorted to in any place or court where the question may arise by any party interested therein.” Under this provision the parties were at liberty to introduce any legal evidence on that issue. Prescott v. Ayres, 276 Ill. 242; Dowling v. Gilliland, 275 Ill. 76; Kelly v. Kelly, 285 Ill. 72. Complainant’s brief emphasizes the case of Healea v. Verne, 343 Ill. 325, as supporting her contention that the order of the probate court is res gdjudicata. We do not so read the opinion in that case. There had been an appeal to the circuit court from the order of the probate court as to the heirship and the order of the probate court was reversed. On appeal to the Appellate Court the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. It was held that the trial in the circuit court was de novo and that the judgment of the Appellate Court was res adjudicata on the question of heirship. That is quite different from holding that the order of the probate court is res adjudicata. Section 7 of the Statute of Wills, Cahill’s St. ch. 148, U7, confers complete jurisdiction on the circuit court upon all questions in the contest of a will, including the question of whether the person instituting the contest is a “person interested.” All these questions are heard in the circuit court de novo and without regard to the order entered in the probate court. Henline v. Brady, 110 Ill. App. 75. In Dowling v. Gilliland, 275 Ill. 76, it was held by the circuit court that the judgment of the probate court admitting a will to probate not having been appealed from, was res adjudicata and conclusive. The Supreme Court did not agree with this and reversed the circuit court.

Prima facie evidence of heirship simply means that which is apparently established by evidence and implies that this may be overcome by competent testimony. Morrison v. Flowers, 308 Ill. 189; Anlicker v. Brethorst, 329 Ill. 11.

The first order in the probate court upon the question of heirship was made December 29, 1926, finding that deceased had left his mother, the only heir at law and next of kin. On February 28, 1929, an order was entered vacating and setting aside this prior order and finding that Jessie Hunt (the complainant here) was his daughter. Upon the trial in the circuit court both sides repeatedly stated that all of the evidence presented in the probate court was before the chancellor.

We are of the opinion that the evidence presented fails to show that complainant was an heir at law of John Barnes, the deceased, but shows otherwise. The first certificate shows the birth of a John Barnes in the Subdistrict of Syston in the county of Leicester, England, on July 5, 1856. The next document is a marriage certificate purporting to show that John Barnes was married on January 24, 1876, to Elizabeth Adams in the District of Poplar, county of Middlesex, England. The certificate describes this John Barnes as being of “f-age.” Counsel for complainant says this means “full age.” As the John Barnes referred to in the birth certificate was born July 5, 1856, he would not be of “full age” at the time of this marriage. Apparently these two documents do not pertain to the same person. The marriage certificate describes John Barnes as an engineer.

The next document is a birth certificate of the complainant, Jessie Hunt. In this certificate her father’s name is given as John Barnes and he is described as a “marine engineer.” In the deposition of Mary Jane Jones she says that she knew John Barnes, the deceased, for many years; that she heard that he was born in Syston, Leicester county, England. This would seem to indicate that this was the same John Barnes named in the birth certificate of July 5, 1856, although it is not conclusive. Mary Jones says that John Barnes was brought up by her parents as their own child; that he never knew that he was not their child; that he was in the drug business; that when they came to America her father put him in the drug business on Halsted street in Chicago. She was not asked and does not testify as to whether John Barnes was ever married or whether he ever had any child or children. The deposition was procured ex parte by complainant for use in the probate court, and it is significant that the witness was not asked these important questions. It seems to be conceded that the John Barnes in question was a chemist in the drug business. There is nothing to indicate that he is the same John Barnes who is described in the marriage certificate as an “ engineer ’ ’ or in complainant’s birth certificate as a “marine engineer.” The occupation of a marine engineer is so remote from that of a chemist or druggist as to amount to affirmative proof that these men are not the same.

The name John Barnes is a very common name. Counsel for defendant states that there are 15 of them in the Chicago telephone directory. In Lewandowski v. Zusak, 305 Ill. 612, Joseph Lewandowski and his sister attacked the will of Michael Lewandowski; they produced certificates showing the birth of the same parents in Leczyca of Jozef and Michal Lewandowski; there was evidence that1 the testator, Michael, came from Leczyca. This evidence was held insufficient to prove the. relationship of the complainants with the testator. If, as the opinion states, the fact of the identity must be established by other evidence, it would certainly require other and better evidence to establish the identity of anyone of such a common name as John Barnes.

We are of the opinion that the evidence not only failed to show that complainant was an heir at law of the deceased and a “person interested,” but that it affirmatively shows to the contrary.

The order of the chancellor was proper and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

O’Connor, P. J., and Matchett, J., concur.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Herman Hansen, Appellee, v. Richard J. Collins et al., Appellants.
    Gen. No. 35,794.
    Opinion filed March 28, 1932.
    Rehearing denied April 11, 1932.
    William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, and Francis J. Vurpillat, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for appellants.
    James Gr. Culbertson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioner, Herman Hansen, sought by mandamus against the Civil Service Commission of Chicago certain preferences in appointment and employment by virtue of the fact that he was an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Navy, and hence, under section 10% of the Civil Service Act, chapter 24, paragraph 695, Illinois Statutes (Cahill) 1931, entitled to such preference. To his petition respondents filed a general demurrer which was overruled, and respondents electing to stand by their demurrer judgment awarding the writ of mandamus was entered.

The ultimate question presented is whether, when it becomes necessary to lay off some employees of a class, the commissioners shall first lay off persons who were last certified to such employment, as prescribed by their rules, or, as petitioner contends, should the commissioners first lay off those who were not veterans and lay veterans off last ?

The petition asserts the adoption in April, 1895, of “An Act to regulate the civil service of cities”; that pursuant to this act the Civil Service Commission classified the offices and places of employment in the city, including the classification of carpenters; that the act provided that the commissioners should adopt rules for carrying out the purposes of the act; that sections 1 and 3 of rule 9 provide that whenever it becomes necessary to reduce the force in any employment “the person who was last certified to such employment shall be the first laid off”; that section 10% of the Civil Service Act, Cahill’s St. ch. 24, f 695, provides that persons who were engaged in military or naval service of the United States and who were honorably discharged therefrom ‘ ‘ shall be preferred for appointments to civil offices,” provided they possess the capacity properly to discharge the duties of such office ; ‘ and it shall be the duty of the examiner or commissioner certifying the list of eligibles who have taken the examinations provided for in this Act, to place the name or names of such persons at the head of the list of eligibles certified for appointment.” The section also contained provisions pertaining to promotions.

Petitioner alleged that he was an honorably discharged veteran from the navy of the United States and took and passed the original examination for carpenter, was placed on the eligible list with those who had successfully passed the examination and was thereafter certified to the office of employment as such carpenter, where he had served the six months ’ probationary period. Petitioner asserts that under section 10% aforesaid, he should be placed at the head of the eligible list or register of carpenters and should be retained or employed as such carpenter until all of those on this list who are not veterans are first discharged or laid off, and, should it become necessary to lay off petitioner, that he should be recalled first before those who are not veterans are recalled, notwithstanding the rules of the commission to the contrary.

Defendants’ position seems to be that the section in question provides exclusively for only two preferences to veterans: (1) the placing of their names at the head of the list of eligibles who have taken the examinations, and (2) in promotional examinations; that preferences are therefore confined to these situations and the court cannot extend or expand the section to include any other preferences such as retention in employment.

Petitioner presents decisions by the New York courts construing provisions of the constitution and statutes of that State which are somewhat analogous to those in the Illinois statute. The New York constitution provides “that veterans shall be entitled to preference in appointment and promotion.” (New York Constitution, sec. 9 of article 5.) This language is repeated substantially in the New York Statute, sec. 21, ch. 15. In re Matter of Stutzbach v. Goler, 168 N. Y. 416, and in People ex rel. Davison v. Williams, 213 N. Y. 130, the words “appointment and promotion” were construed to mean the same as “appointment, employment and promotion. ” In a number of New York decisions it was held in substance that veterans were entitled to preference when a reduction of positions had become necessary. McCloskey v. Willis, 44 N. Y. S. 682; In re Matter of Sullivan, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 285, and People ex rel. Davison v. Williams, supra.

Comparison of the New York Constitution and statute with section 10% of our own Civil Service Act shows a clear difference in this, that while the New York enactments provide only in general terms for preferences to veterans, our statute specifies the circumstances under which preferences shall be given. The New York enactments left open the particular circumstances under which preferences should be given, to be determined by statute, rules, or construction by the courts. It was pursuant to this policy that the New York courts held that preferences to veterans should be given under the circumstances presented in those cases. In section 10% of our statute the particular circumstances under which preferences to veterans are to be given are specified; these are (1) that “the examiner or commissioner certifying the list of eligibles who have taken the examinations provided for in this Act (shall) place the name or names of such persons (veterans) at the head of the list of eligibles certified for appointment,” and (2) with reference to promotions, where an applicant for promotion to a higher position, if a veteran, shall be “given an additional credit in the promotional examination of one per cent (1%) (on the basis of 100%) for each six months or fraction thereof of such military or naval service. ’ ’

The first preference applies to the veteran before he enters the classified service; the second provides for an additional credit to the veteran, upon examinations for promotion, who is already in the service.

In the construction of statutes the rule is that an enumeration of certain specified things excludes all others not therein mentioned. Consolidated Coal Co. of St. Louis v. Miller, 236 Ill. 149; People’s Loan Homestead Ass’n v. Keith, 153 Ill. 609. Applying this rule we are of the opinion that the legislature did not intend to give preferences except in the two instances specified in the act. If it had been the intention to give veterans already in the service, in the event of a layoff, preference over non-veterans who were already in the service, it is reasonable to presume that the legislature would have expressed this intention. We must construe its omission so to do as indicating its intention not to interfere with the status of employees after they had entered the public service. We have no power by judicial interpretation to extend the operation of a statute beyond the limits specified therein. This can be accomplished only by legislative enactment.

For the reasons indicated we are of the opinion that the demurrer to the petition should have been sustained. The judgment awarding the writ is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with what we have said in this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

O’Connor, P. J., and Hatchett, J., concur.