author: Mr, Justice MeSurely

text:
    Sarah Kohn, appellee, v. Sol Rubin et al., on appeal of Sol Rubin, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,130.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1928.
    Clark & Clark and Edward M. Keating, for appellant; Bussell S. Clark, of counsel. Slottow & Levitón, for appellee.
   Mr, Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice MeSurely

license: Public Domain

text:
    Herman Lamm et al., appellees, v. Amber Furniture Company, successor to Bernstein Furniture Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,259.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1928.
    Schoenbrod & Rosengard, for appellant. Harry D. Knight, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ruth Raymond for use of Sam Chalip, appellee, v. The Girard Fire & Marine Insurance Company, garnishee, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,306.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Silber, Isaacs, Silber & Woley, for appellant; Frederick D. Silber and Samuel Levin, of counsel. Golden & Golden, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    J. Liston Nau et al., appellees, v. H. O. Dannenberg, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,324.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Harold W. Jirka, for appellant. Rothbart & Lewis, for appellees; Wharton Plummer, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Robert Seligman, defendant in error, v. Slater & Slater, Inc., plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,400.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Edward L. England, for plaintiff in error; Edward F. O’Toole and Homer A. Dodge, of counsel. Otto Baer, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John J. Phee, appellant, v. John Paluch, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,453.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    John S. Flannery, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr, Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court,


author: Mr. Justice O'Connor

text:
    Isadore Mackevich, appellee, v. Louis Neiman and Elias Neiman, trading as Neiman Brothers, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,062.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1928.
    L. A. Sherwin, for appellants. Ho appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O'Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Cyril C. Maison, appellee, v. Federal Parlor Furniture Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,116.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Charles E. Green and Lawrence A. Rice, for appellant. Schein & Beckwith, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O'Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice O’Connor

text:
    City of Chicago, defendant in error, v. Emil Pearson, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,125.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    C. W. Larsen, for plaintiff in error. Ho appearance for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Sylvia R. Gerson, formerly Sylvia R. Mathes, appellee, v. Sam A. Mathes, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,211.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1928.
    Sidney Heuman, for appellant. Frank B. Teed, for appellee; Marlow J. Madden, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr, Justice O'Connor

text:
    Joseph B. Deibler, appellee, v. W. C. Makinney, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,229.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    W. F. Mayer, for appellant. George A. Berry, Jr., for appellee.
   Mr, Justice O'Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Fuso Marine & Fire Insurance Company, Ltd., of Tokio, Japan, appellee, v. R. N. Crawford, trading as R. N. Crawford & Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,327.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Eastman, White, Hawxhurst & Lind, for appellant. Hoyne, O’Con-nor & Rubinkam, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court,


text:
    Mazeppa Scott Edmunds et al. Mazeppa Scott Edmunds, appellant, v. Walter M. Farmer, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,336.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Harry S. Greenstein, for appellant. Wendel E. Green, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. justice O’Connor

text:
    The Union Trust Company, administrator of the estate of William George, deceased, appellant, v. The Chicago, Aurora & Elgin Motor Lines, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,345.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Bradley, Williams, Harper & Farrell and Fred A. Gariepy, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank S. Oliverio, appellee, v. Ralph Sollitt & Sons Construction Company and John Behrmann, Inc., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,365.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1928.
    Jesse Marcus, for appellants. John D; Farrell, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr; Presiding Justice Taylor

text:
    Carl Lind, appellee, v. Harry M. Englestein et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,097.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Samuels, Lawton & Wittelle, for appellants. Oke L. Pearson, for appellee; Amos W. Marston, of counsel.
   Mr; Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

text:
    Ready & Callaghan Coal Company, appellee, v. Town of Cicero et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,148.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 17, 1928.
    Edward J. Carmody and Thomas M. Zasadil, for appellants. Winters, Stevens, Risk' & Griffith, for appellee; George M. Stevens, Julian Clay Risk and Melvin L. Griffith, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Western & Southern Life Insurance Company, appellant, v. George R. Bair, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,210.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. Clarence A. Toolen, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Katherine A. Patterson, appellee, v. Thomas L. Gregson et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,234.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, by William B. Walrath, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Hayden N. Bell, for appellants. William Reeda and Charles E. Peace, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. John Edward Nohren, appellee, v. Thomas L. Gregson et al., appellants.
    Gen No. 32,236.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, by William B. Walrath, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Hayden H. Bell, for appellants. William Reeda, Charles E. Peace and Thomas P. Fitzpatrick, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Richard H. Norton, appellee, v. J. H. Hooper, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,258.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    James H. Hooper, pro se. Merle E. Finch, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Peter M. Hoffman, successor to Charles W. Peters, sheriff of Cook county, Illinois, for use of William Jacobs, defendant in error, v. J. Gray Lucas et al., plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 32,267.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 12, 1928.
    Edward H. Morris and J. Gray Lucas, for plaintiffs in error. Walter A. Rooney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Holdom

text:
    J. E. Mann, trading as Mann’s Fashion Shop, plaintiff in error, v. Federal Surety Company, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 32,015.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Moses, Kennedy, Stein & Baehraeh, for plaintiff in error; Walter Baehraeh and Walter H. Moses, of counsel. McKenna & Harris, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Francis A. Hurley, appellee, v. City of Chicago, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,139.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Samuel A. Ettelson, Corporation Counsel, James M. Breen, First Assistant Corporation Counsel, and Francis J. Vurpillat, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for appellant; Francis J. Vurpillat, of counsel on the brief. Anthony J. Schmidt, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    A. J. Panagakos, trading as A. J. Panagakos & Company, appellee, v. George J. Cooke Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,252.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Brown, Brown & Brown, for appellant. Melnerney & Power, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Max Rosenberg, appellee, v. Fannie McComb, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,261.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    Rehearing denied and opinion modified April 9, 1928.
    Francis J. Gariepy, for appellant. Leo B. Lowenthal, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Michael Schwab, appellee, v. Lorraine Schaefer et al., on appeal of Lorraine Schaefer, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,464.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1928.
    N. L. Quadow, for appellant; Maxfield Weisbrod, of counsel. Henry M. Hagan, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

text:
    E. A. Howard, appellant, v. H. H. Patrick and J. Drtina, appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,099.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Nicholson, Crandall & Snyder, for appellant. John M. Lee, John F. McGrath and P. F. Murray, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles Norvil, whose true name is Charles Norbutos, appellant, v. Dominick Witkus, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,138.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    William A. Rogan, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    I. Ury, appellee, v. Albert J. Simon and Morris Bordacov. Morris Bordacov, appellant.
    Gen No. 32,147.

      Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    William Jaffe, for appellant. Tannenbaum & Polikoff and Maurice Weissman, for appellee."
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Morris Smulevitz, appellant, v. Singer Sewing Machine Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,170.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Benjamin H. Black, for appellant. Carnahan & Slusser, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lena Cohn et al., appellees, v. Max Enelow, executor of the estate of Mathilda Enelow, deceased, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,182.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Slottow & Levitón, for appellant; Charles Levitón, of counsel. Julian J. Luster, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Underwriters Mutual Insurance Company, appellant, v. The First National Bank of Oak Park, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,197.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    O. J. C. Wray, for appellant; Lewis E. Johnson, of counsel. Teller, Levit, Silver-trust & Levi, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the oninion of the court.


text:
    Ellen Moore, appellant, v. Chicago Surface Lines et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,215.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Houston H. Hall and Zedrick T. Braden, for appellant. J. R. Guilliams and Frank L. Kriete, for appellees; Thomas F. Murphy and Alfred B. Davis, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ralph L. Cobb et al., trustees, complainants, v. Charles W. Leland et al., defendants. South Side Trust & Savings Bank, trustee, appellant, v. John S. Smith, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,224.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 17, 1928.
    Andrew R. Sherriff, for appellant. John B. Wheeler and Edward McTiernan, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph D. Schmidt and Isaac Schmidt, appellees, v. F. S. Hendricks, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,251.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Linaweaver & Linaweaver, for appellant. Samuel M. Ash, for •appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Henry J. Karch, appellee, v. Henry Schrik, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,269.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 17, 1928.
    Henry H. Koven, for appellant. Earl J. Walker, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    David Haas, trading as David Haas & Company, appellee, v. Jacob Cohn et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,274.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Julian J. Luster, for appellants. Teller, Levit, Silvertrust & Levi, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    American Furniture & Carpet Company, appellee, v. Thomas W. Philpott and Arthur L. Philpott, trading as Thomas W. Philpott & Son, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,278.

      Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Soelke, Koehn & Loewy, for appellants. Sidney Oppenheim, for appellee; Louis J. Jacobson, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Illinois Interior Finish Company, appellee, v. Daniel M. O’Neil and Harold J. Ham, trading as D. M. O’Neil & Company, defendants, on appeal of Daniel M. O’Neil, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,292.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    William R. Wiley, for appellant. Claude J. Dalenberg, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Illinois State Lumber Company, appellee, v. Daniel M. O’Neil and Harold J. Ham, trading as D. M. O’Neil & Company, defendants, on appeal of Daniel M. O’Neil, appellant.
    Gen No. 32,293.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    William R. Wiley, for appellant. Claude J. Dalenberg, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Gridley

text:
    Louis Belegrate, plaintiff in error, v. Luminus Sign Company and Nathan Herzog, defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 32,037.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    B. M. Shaffner, for plaintiff in error. Ogren & Cross, for Luminus Sign Co., defendant in error; Stephen A. Cross, of counsel. • Oscar F. Nelson and Joseph A. Ricker, for Nathan Herzog, defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    G. W. Brainard, trustee in bankruptcy of the Globe Auto Supply Corporation, appellee, v. Morris Froehlich and Louis Mansbach, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,053.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Rufus F. Robinson and Ernest C. Reniff, for appellants. Haffenberg, Kopald & Burns, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Samuel Kamins, trading as Wetzel County Cigar Works, plaintiff and appellee, v. Kildow Brothers Cigar Company, defendant. Earl H. Tennyson, interpleader, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,102.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Allen, Ward & Gallagher, for appellant; William H. Gallagher, of counsel. Sehoen & Green, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Marko Fadlyevich, appellee, v. M. W. Gillogly, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,111.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    George L. Turner, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Mayre Agnes Ryan, administratrix of the estate of Anna Ryan, deceased, appellee, v. Lena J. Larson, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,120.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    John A. Bloomingston, for appellant. Joseph D. Ryan, for appellee; Joseph D. Ryan and Edmund M. Sinnott, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Acme International X-Ray Company, appellant, v. Maryland Casualty Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,129.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    William R. T. Ewen, for appellant. Wilson, Mellvaine, Hale & Templeton, for appellee; J. F. Dammann, Jr., and Louis S. Hardin, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    James Jirsa, appellee, v. L. Hlavec, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,141.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.

      Vose & Vose, for appellant; John D. Clancy and Fred J. Dawley, of counsel. John J. Sherlock, for appellee; Walter A. O’Brien, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis Feinberg, appellant, v. William J. Oakey et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,179.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    James J. Glassner and Peter Postejnek, for appellant. Loucks, Eckert & Peterson, for William J. Oakey and Charles Nettleton, appellees; Abe B. Peterson,and Tom Deeming, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank Ponczek, appellee, v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,209.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 17, 1928.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. Irving G. Zazove, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Samuel H. Flamm, appellee, v. Edward Greenstone et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,590.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    William Feldman, for appellants. Tarnopol & Flamm, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Scanlan

text:
    Peter S. Jaglowski, appellee, v. Frank Campe, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,096.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Robert S. Cook, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Seanlan

text:
    Frances Schwartz, appellant, v. Bernard W. Snow, bailiff of the municipal court of Chicago, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,105.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    William Navigato and William Schulze, for appellant. Ratner & Ratner, for appellee; William E. Rafferty, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Jennie Horwitz, appellant, v. Cascade Laundry Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,114.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Alfred Roy Hulbert, for appellant. Joseph H. Hinshaw, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Blanche Woodward, appellee, v. American Mutual Indemnity Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,123.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    John A. Bloomingston, for appellant. Harry W. Standidge, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Florence Bowman, appellee, v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,144.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Fred H. Montgomery, for appellant; W. S. Horton and Vernon W. Foster, of counsel. A. M. Burroughs and H. H. Patterson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Robert E. Crowe, State’s attorney, defendant in error, v. Milton Denney and George W. Ray, plaintiffs in error, impleaded with Roy S. Pipes and Walter T. Larsen.
    Gen. No. 32,154.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.

      Gurdon Williams, for plaintiffs in .error. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward H. Taylor, Arthur Carlsten, James H. Mahoney and Mortimer C. Grover, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Robert E. Crowe, State’s attorney, defendant in error, v. Milton Denney and George W. Ray, plaintiffs in error, impleaded with Roy S. Pipes and Walter T. Larsen.
    Gen. No. 32,155.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Gurdon Williams, for plaintiffs in error. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward H. Taylor, Arthur Carlsten, James H. Mahoney and Mortimer C. Grover, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice .Scanlan

text:
    James Tinley, appellee, v. Morris J. Goldstein and Samuel J. Vihon, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,167.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Joseph Rosenberg, for appellants; Benjamin Rosenberg, of counsel. Teller, Levit, Silvertrust & Levi, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice .Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Samuel R. Ruby, appellant, v. Anakin Lock & Alarm Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,181.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Slottow & Levitón, for appellant; Charles Levitón and Wendell Carnahan, of counsel. Frederick A. Brown, for appellee; William G. Worthey, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    F. X. Owens for use of Arthur F. Kenney, appellee, v. Viking Chemical Corporation, appellant.
    Gen No. 32,188.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Hyde, Hennings, Thulin, Westbrook & Watson and Joseph McCormack, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Edgar Lewis, appellee, v. Mattie Clark, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,230.
    Opinion filed April 3, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 17, 1928.
    Ellis & Westbrooks, Richard E. Westbrooks, Blaine G. Alston and William B. Bruce, for appellant; Richard E. Westbrooks, of counsel. Jacob Kosbie and Aaron Soble, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

text:
    Marie Voyd, appellee, v. Calumet National Bank, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,511.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Peden, Kahn & Murphy, for appellant; Gerald Ryan, of counsel. Thompson, Tyrrell & Chambers and Ernest Kasischke, for appellee; Otto T. Langbein, Jr., of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice McSurely

text:
    Napoleon Cheffer, defendant in error, v. City of Chicago, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 31,808.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Samuel A. Ettelson, Corporation Counsel, and William D. Saltiel, City Attorney, for plaintiff in error; Roy S. Gaskill and Edward M. Quinn, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel. Charles Goodman and John A. Bloomingston, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Henry A. Christy, appellee, v. Bella C. Brown, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,444.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Frederick A. Brown, for appellant; William G. Worthey, of counsel. Newby & Murphy, for appellee; John B. King and Robert E. Ward, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles Horn, trading as Charles Horn Lumber Company, appellee, v. H. A. Hoover, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,527.

      Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Rehearing denied April 20, 1928.
    Daniel S. Wentworth and John P. Sullivan, for appellant. Herbert A. Sehryver, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis A. Paukszta, appellee, v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of Baltimore, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,582.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; T. I. Underwood, of counsel. Hermann P. Haase, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Paul Krause and Louise Krause, appellees, v. George Grove and Annie Grove, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,462.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Arthur H. Jones, for appellants. A. F. W. Siebel, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Millie Hanke, defendant in error, v. Alvinia H. Lloyd et al., plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 32,487.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Otto Schusterman, for Alvinia H. Lloyd, plaintiff in error. James Edgar Brown, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Achillis Balalas, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,498.
    Matehett, P. J., dissents.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Ungaro, Blumenthal & Romano, for plaintiff in error; Louis Green-berg, of counsel. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson and John Holman, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louise Bucker, appellee, v. Central Business Men’s Association, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,507.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Helmer, Moulton, Whitman & Holton, for appellant. Rufus M. Potts, C. W. Armstrong and Joseph W. Cox, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Clement A. Boyle, appellee, v. Yellow Cab Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,520.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Samuels, Costello & Greenberg, for appellant. Golden, Kagan & Whiteside, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph E. Snowden, administrator of the estate of Ella Lee, deceased, appellee, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,557.
    Opinion filed April 9, 1928.
    Hoyne, O ’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. Heber T. Dotson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Meyer W. Goldstein, appellee, v. Harry Mizell et al., defendants, on appeal of Julius Simon et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,740.
    Opinion filed April 23, 1928.
    Rosenberg, Braude & Zimmerman, for appellants; Irving Zimmerman and Benjamin Nelson, of counsel. Samuel H. Rosenthal, for appellee.
   Mr, Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles R. Wells, administrator, appellee, v. Louis Benson, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,305.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.

      Church, Haft, Robertson & Crowe, for appellant; Burt A. Crowe, of counsel. O’Connell, Herr & Arvey, for appellee; John F. O’Connell and Simon Herr, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charlotte Oelschlagel, appellee, v. Moir Hotel Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,347.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Campbell & Fischer, for appellant; Carlton L. Fischer and Raymond P. Fischer, of counsel. Benjamin H. Ehrlich, for appellee; Aaron H. Cohn, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Carolan, Graham & Hoffman, Inc., appellee, v. J. D. Rankin, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,374.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    McBride & Brenner, for appellant. Newby & Murphy, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. James H. Hooper, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,417.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    - James H. Hooper, pro se. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Horace M. Sharpe, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Walter Hatley, plaintiff in error, v. Maggie Hatley, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 31,981.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 17, 1928.
    Ellis & Westbrooks, Richard E. Westbrooks, Blaine G. Alston and William B. Bruce, for plaintiff in error; Richard E. Westbrooks, of counsel. James G. Cotter, for defendant in error; C. H. Calloway, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr, Justice Holdom

text:
    Ralph Levin, appellee, v. I. Mansbach, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,353.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Mort D. & Frank Goldberg, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr, Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Pyramid Chemical Company, appellee, v. Ralph Sollitt & Sons Construction Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,367.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Jesse Marcus, for appellant. Townley, Wild, Campbell & Clark, for appellee; Charles V. Clark and Allin H. Pierce, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Anna E. Tanner, plaintiff in error, v. John C. Tanner, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 32,426.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Frank T. McDermott, for plaintiff in error; Frank A. Ramsey, of counsel. Harry X. Cole, for defendant in error; Cohon & Goldstein, of counsel.
   Mr, Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Carlson Fuel & Supply Company, appellee, v. James L. Munger and James T. Munger, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,436.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Sinden & Hassell, for appellants; Clyde C. Fisher, of counsel. Harry H. Felgar, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis Crane, plaintiff in error, v. David Zolotov and Israel Choldenko, defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 32,491.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 17, 1928.
    Daniel Gombiner, for plaintiff in error. Myron E. Wisch, for defendants in error; Nathan Einhorn, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Thomas Maloney, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,538.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    M. D. Dolan, for plaintiff in error. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; John Holman and Edward E. Wilson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr, Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Wilson

text:
    Rose A. McCauley, appellant, v. Michael McCauley, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,143.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Lloyd A. Faxon, for appellant. Milton J. Sabath, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    H. H. Burke, trading as Midway Realty Company, appellee, v. Stephen Windisch and Francis Windisch, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,237.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Harry G. Hershenson, for appellants; A. N. Lustig, of counsel. Kelly & Murphy, for appellee; Frank F. Trunk, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William H. Pontow and Warren Pontow, trading as William H. Pontow & Son, appellees, v. Arvid Morton and Gunnar Morton, trading as A. Morton & Brother, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,255.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 17, 1928.
    Webster & Holmgren, for appellants; Daniel Webster, of counsel. Harry A. Fleck, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Arthur Rosenberg, trading as Summit Electric Company, appellee, v. R. H. Parker, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,276.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Evert O. Hutchins, for appellant. McBride & Brenner, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

deliyered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William H. Brown & Company, appellant, v. John F. Owens et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,314.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Heineman, Ronan & Langsett, for appellant. Chetlain, Meagher & Chetlain, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lewis A. Lawson, appellee, v. B. J. McShane, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,323.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    William L. Hart, for appellant; William L. Hart and Joseph P. Brodie, of counsel. Frank L. Childs, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Swarts Brothers, appellee, v. Cort Theatre Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,344.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Paul R. Borland, for appellant. Louis Grollman, for appellee; Charles Harris, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr- Justice Wilson

text:
    First Acceptance Corporation, appellee, v. Stewart Zeeh Motor Sales Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,356.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Klaas & Porter, for appellant; Louis Klaas, of counsel. Aronson & Aronson, for appellee; Arthur W. Coppin and Leo E. Aronson, of counsel.
   Mr- Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Eugene F. White, appellee, v. Chicago Acceptance Corporation, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,380.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Walter Cowburn, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    George Moore, appellant, v. E. L. Ferguson, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,455.
    Opinion filed May 2, 1928.
    Peden, Kahn & Murphy, for appellant; Gerald Ryan, of counsel. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    A. Berke, appellee, v. William J. Conroy and Helen Conroy, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,158.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Charles F. Vogel and Earl C. Hales, for appellants. A. S. and E. W. Froehlieh, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Walter Wolczek, by Antonia Wolczek, appellee, v. Public Service Company of Northern Illinois, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,200.
    Gridley, J., dissents.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Gardner, Foote, Burns & Morrow, for appellant; Walter M. Fowler, of counsel. John A. Bloomingston, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Victoria Eastman, appellee, v. James Gavin, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,304.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Church, Haft, Robertson & Crowe, for appellant; Burt A. Crowe, of counsel. Clarence S. Darrow and William H. Holly, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John E. Sullivan, appellant, v. Edward L. Genez and Cora Genez, appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,313.

      Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Chetlain, Meagher & Chetlain, for appellant. No appearance for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr, Presiding Justice Barnes

text:
    Violet Lee Martin, appellee, v. Edward Hauser, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,322.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    William L. Hart, for appellant; William L. Hart and Joseph P. Erodio, of counsel. Kremer, Branand & Hamer, for appellee; Donald Campbell, of counsel.
   Mr, Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Schiele-Lawler Coal Company, appellee, v. Samuel Dubinsky and Lizzie Dubinsky, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,355.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Gallagher, Shulman, Abrams & Henry, for appellants. Harris, Reinhardt & Russell, for appellee; John A. Russell and Herbert Bebb, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    F. E. Carey Coal Company, appellee, v. Alfred Hamburger, Inc., appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,366.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Jesse Marcus, for appellant. Newby & Murphy, for appellee; John B. King, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ralph E. Pettit, appellee, v. Anthony Novotny, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,392.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Remer &= West, for appellant; Lawrence J. West and Bruneau E. Heirich, of counsel. Burt A. Crowe, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Wellington Martin, appellee, v. The National Life & Accident Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,454.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Roderick H. O'Connor, for appellant. Temple, Brown & Harewood, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph Urban and Joseph Baumruk, trading as Urban & Baumruk, appellees, v. Julius Jedrysik and Regina Jedrysik, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,466.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 21, 1928.
    Danaher & Harriott, for appellants; James J. Danaher and John C. Harriott, Jr., of counsel. Jerome J. Cermak, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Hridley

text:
    Western Securities Investment Company, appellee, v. The Griffin Mining Company et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,164.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    John P. Devine, Jr., Joseph J. Sullivan and Lee Walker, for appellants. Harry Eugene Kelly and Will A. Kelly, for appellee; William L. Hartman, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Hridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ida Meyers Henninger, appellant, v. Union Bank of Chicago, trustee, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,218.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Harry Z. Perel and Bernard Perel, for appellant. Joseph Graniek and Edward N. Sherburne, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Emil Benke, appellee, v. J. F. Schwab, Jr., appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,227.

      Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Cassels, Potter & Bentley, for appellant; Ralph F. Potter and George O. Bunge, of counsel. Julius S. Neale, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    J. J. Babka, appellee, v. Menke Komorous Company et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,272.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Beckman, Olson & Hough, for appellants. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Oscar Rubin, appellee, v. Jacob Greenman, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,281.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Morris K. Levinson, for appellant. Clark & Clark, for appellee; Russell S. Clark, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Northwestern Electric Company, appellant, v. Stuart D. Boynton, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,307.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Litsinger, Healy & Reid, for appellant. Adler, Lederer & Kahn, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ernest Saunders, appellant, v. June E. Osterberg et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,212.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Frank A. Ramsay, for appellant. Walter M. Farmer, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Bosnian

text:
    Charles Olson and Jennie L. Olson, appellees, v. Edward I. Eastburn, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,257.

      Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    A. G. Dicus, for appellant. Anderson & Boche, for appellees; O. Hilding Anderson, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Bosnian

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr, Justice Seanlan

text:
    John Kirby, appellee, v. Ben Goldschlag, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,275.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 21, 1928.
    Julian J. Luster, for appellant. Brown, Brown & Brown, for appellee.
   Mr, Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court,


text:
    Ignatz Schwartz, appellee, v. Louis Holzman, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,287.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 21, 1928.
    Martin M. Gross, for appellant. Samuels, Lawton & Wittelle, for appellee.
   Mr, Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank Blake, by Mathilda Blake, appellee, v. Chicago & West Towns Railway Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,310.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Berthold L. Goldberg, for appellant. Earl J. Walker, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John Moloney, appellant, v. Frederick Arnd, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,319.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 21, 1928.
    C. D. Jones, for appellant. Arnd, Gavin, Griffin & Maraz, for appellee; John J. Griffin, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph Isaac, appellee, v. Abe Benkowsky, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,328.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    F. H. Kay, for appellant. Morris Aronson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John Gervasi, by Vito Gervasi, appellee, v. Thomas Cusack Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,349.
    Opinion filed May 8, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 21, 1928.
    Hummer & Hummer, for appellant. Gallagher, Shulman & Abrams, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Jones

text:
    Second District.
    Clara Handel, appellee, v. Christ Handel, administrator of the estate of Dorothea Handel, deceased, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,740.
    Opinion filed March 23, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 1, 1928.
    Turnbaugh & Eaton, for appellant. Hall & Dusher, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Alexander H. Steenrod, receiver for L. M. Gross Company, appellant, v. L. M. Gross Company for use of Second National Bank of Freeport, Illinois, appellee.
    Gen. No. 7,751.
    Opinion filed March 23, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 1, 1928.
    R. R. Tiffany, for appellant. C. W. Middlekauff, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Wallace Shallcross, by Benjamin Shallcross, appellee, v. Paul Bianchi, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,758.
    Opinion filed March 23, 1928.
    Hall & Dusher, for appellant. Garrett, Maynard & Fell, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Walter E. Heller & Company, appellant, v. Harry Gatton, appellee.
    Gen. No. 7,769.
    Opinion filed March 23, 1928.
    Clarence W. Heyl and Harry C. Heyl, for appellant; Heyl & Heyl, of counsel. A. L. Anderson, for appellee; Cameron & Anderson, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ernest Brook, trustee, and M. A. Carmack, appellees, v. Pistakee Boat & Engine Company et al. Pistakee Boat & Engine Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,795.
    Opinion filed March 23, 1928.
    Otto F. Ring and Eugene M. Runyard, for appellant. D. T. Smiley, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Boggs

text:
    O. J. Goehring, appellee, v. Reuss State Bank, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,853.
    Opinion filed April 6, 1928.
    Charles W. Hadley and William R. Friedrich, for appellant. Walter J. Miller and Walter L. Wenger, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Howard Haungs, petitioner for and on behalf of Robert C. Haungs, defendant in error, v. Hulda Pierce and Peter Pierce, plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 7,870.
    Opinion filed April 6, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 1, 1928.
    Shurtleff & Niehaus, Clarence D. J/Turphy and George W. Sprenger, for plaintiffs in error. Weil, Bartley & Weil, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William Behrens and Edward Freundt, trading as Behrens & Freundt, appellees, v. Mrs. Michael O’Brien, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,880.

      Opinion filed April 6, 1928.
    Thomas M. Cliffe, for appellant. Poust, Fisk & Moudry, for appellees; Cassius Poust and L. Frank Moudry, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Produce Distributors Company, appellee, v. Clara Geanopolos, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,899.
    Opinion filed April 6, 1928.
    Hineheliffe & Miller, for appellant. Hyer & Gill, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph Szold and Jacob Szold, trading as Joseph Szold & Son, defendants in error, v. Myrtle Smith, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 7,807.
    Opinion filed April 6, 1928.
    Richard H. Radley and E. T. Anthony, for plaintiff in error. Clarence W. Heyl and Harry C. Heyl, for defendants in error; Heyl & Heyl, o'f counsel.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph E. Daily, appellee, v. F. J. Williams, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,815.
    Opinion filed April 6, 1928.
    Clark & Clark, for appellant; Russell S. Clark, of counsel. Cooke, Sullivan & Ricks, for appellee; Shelton F. McGrath, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    J. H. Krause Supply Company, appellant, v. Arthur L. Hamilton, appellee.
    Gen. No. 7,877.
    Opinion filed April 11, 1928.
    Hall & Dusher, for appellant. North, Linscott, Gibboney & North, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    C. H. Lefler, appellant, v. Board of School Inspectors of the City of Peoria and School District No. 150, Peoria County, Illinois, appellee.
    Gen. No. 7,883.

      Opinion filed April 11, 1928.
    O. H. Lefler, pro se, for appellant; Clyde Capron, of counsel. H. D. Morgan, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Alfonso Caci, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 7,745.
    Opinion filed May 7, 1928.
    North, Linscott, Gibboney & North, for plaintiff in error. William D. Knight, State’s Attorney, and A. B. Louison, Assistant State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Z. Twyman, plaintiff in error, v. N. D. Bowker and John H. Smith, trading as Bowker-Smith Company, defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 7,757.
    Opinion filed May 7, 1928.
    Charles E. Lauder and Frederick H. Lauder, for plaintiff in error. H. D. Lewis and E. P. Field, for defendants in error. 1
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John T. Cummings, administrator of the estate of Catherine Collins, deceased, and James H. Andrews, complainants, v. Harry E. Brown and Henry Nelson, defendants. James Norton, cross-complainant and appellant, v. Harry E. Brown et al. cross-defendants and appellees.
    Gen. No. 7,813.
    Opinion filed May 7, 1928.
    Joseph L. Shaw, for appellant. Harry E. Brown, pro se, and Arthur G. Higgs, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Thomas H. Harvey et al., appellants, v. Edward E. Jacobs et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 7,866.
    Opinion filed May 7, 1928.
    Charles Hudson, for appellants. Langworthy, Stevens, MeKeag & Hurley, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    James E. Bennett et al., trading as James E. Bennett & Company, appellees, v. Samuel Jacobson, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,860.
    Opinion filed May 7, 1928.
    Lloyd Painter and Butters & Butters, for appellant. Moses, Kennedy, Stein & Bachraeh and Robert E. Larkin, for appellees; Hirseh E. Soble, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    George E. Cevene and Gladys K. Cevene, appellees, v. Elizabeth F. Weir and Ernest C. Stokburger, appellants.
    Gen. No. 7,873.
    Opinion filed May 7, 1928.
    North, Linscott, Gibboney & North, for appellants. Frank E. Maynard, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Elizabeth Warren, appellee, v. Grand Lodge Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,833.
    Opinion filed May 18, 1928.
    George J. Joehem, for appellant. J. B. Wolfenbarger, Joseph Storey and Willard B. Gaskins, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Leroy H. Hagen, appellee, v. Nels E. Johnson, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,836.
    Opinion filed May 18, 1928.
    North, Linscott, Gibboney &• North, for appellant. Garrett, Maynard & Fell, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph George Ainsworth and George Scott Ainsworth, plaintiffs in error, v. Peoria Malleable Castings Company et al., defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 7,839.

      Opinion filed May 18, 1928.
    Scholes, O’Connor & Dougherty and George W. Hunt, for plaintiffs in error. W. G. McRoberts and E. D. McLaughlin, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

text:
    Third District.
    James Jutelis, appellant, v. Daniel Griffiths, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,108.
    Opinion filed October 31, 1927.
    Rehearing denied January 4, 1928.
    William J. Lawler, for appellant. John G. Eriedmeyer, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Fred Engle, appellee, v. North American Benefit Corporation, appellant. Fred Engle, appellee, v. North American Protective Corporation, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,113.
    Gen. No. 8,114.
    Opinion filed October 31, 1927.
    Rehearing denied January 4, 1928.
    William S. Greer and Carl H. Preihs, for appellants. Leslie J. Taylor, .for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Niehaus

text:
    Henry G. Anderson, appellee, v. Arthur O. Bolen, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,092.
    Opinion filed October 31, 1927.
    Rehearing denied January 4, 1928.
    Redmon & Redmon and Lee Boland,, for appellant. Guy H. Powell, Wm. J. Carey and Lawrence C. Wheat, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Newhall

text:
    Fourth District.
    Paul A. Rice, appellee, v. E. C. Eidman, appellant.

      Opinion filed March 2, 1928.
    Parmer & Klingel and Beasley & Zulley, for appellant. T. A. O’Connor, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Wolfe

text:
    Myrtle E. Brown, appellee, v. American Benefit Life Insurance Company, formerly Merchants & Bankers Life Insurance Company, appellant.
    Opinion filed March 2, 1928.
    Gillespie, Burke & Gillespie, for appellant; Parker & Bauer, Louis P. Gillespie and Hugh J. Dobbs, of counsel. G. P. Denton and Paul Taylor, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Arthur Jannusch, by Emil Jannusch, Appellee, v. Weber Brothers Metal Works, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,348.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Otto A. Jaburek and James S. Wight, for appellant.
    Augustin J. Bowe and William J. Bowe, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff sued and filed a declaration which averred that plaintiff was employed by defendant for a year and a half prior to and including January, 1925, and that while so employed in defendant’s metal spinning establishment, as a direct result of the wilful violation and failure of defendant to comply with the Occupational Diseases Act (Cahill’s St. ch. 48, ¶185 et seq.; Smith-Hurd’s Ill. Rev. St. 1927, ch. 48, p. 1309), plaintiff became infected with an occupational disease peculiar to the work and process of polishing and buffing in which he was engaged, to wit, pulmonary tuberculosis.

The defendant filed a plea of the general issue. There was a trial by jury and a verdict finding the defendant guilty and assessing plaintiff’s damages at $5,000, upon which the court entered judgment.

Defendant first contends the proof did not show that plaintiff contracted an industrial disease at defendant’s plant.

The evidence for plaintiff tended to show that plaintiff, at that time a boy 16 years of age, began to work for the defendant in April, 1923; that his hours of employment were from 7:45 to 5:00, with a half hour for lunch, and he received wages of $28.80 a week; that plaintiff was born on a farm at West Northfield, Illinois, and lived there until he was through school, having graduated when he was between 12 and 13 years of age. His father died in 1921, and so far as plaintiff knows his death was caused by asthma. Plaintiff has four brothers living, one brother dead, two sisters living, and two dead. He left the farm when he was between 13 and 14 years of age, and his health up to that time was good. He then went to work in a greenhouse and did general work, planting, watering and looking after the flowers. He worked there about a year and then went to his brother-in-law’s on a farm and stayed there until he was 16 years of age. During most of that time he was out of doors doing farm work. His health was good and he was not ill during that time. He has four brothers living, and so far as he knows they are all healthy and able-bodied. His sisters are also in good health. One of them lives on a farm and the other in Des Plaines. One brother died when plaintiff was about a year old. He does not know what was the cause of his death. In 1918 one sister died, he thought of the flu, during the flu epidemic. She had been sick about two weeks. The other sister died in 1924 of tuberculosis while she was living in Des Plaines. She was married and did not live with plaintiff and had not lived with him for about two years. His mother died of cancer of the stomach. Just before plaintiff went to work for defendant, he worked about a month for the Benjamin Electric Company. He was examined for insurance and was passed. The doctor examined his lungs with a stethoscope and gave him a physical examination. This was about six months before he went to work for defendant.

Plaintiff began work with defendant as a blank cutter, that is, he cut discs that were used for spinning. These w;ere metal discs of different lands of metal and were cut inshape for the metal finishers, just flat discs of different sizes and also round. Machines were used in doing this work — two small wheels close together, turning around. There was no dust created by that process.

After that time plaintiff started spinning, working on a lathe in the same room and working the same hours. His work consisted of using an object to get the thing into a certain shape. He used emery cloth because sometimes the object would be scratched or be uneven and the cloth was used to take the scratches ‘ out of it. Each job had a number and he marked the number of hours that he worked on the job. He worked as a spinner for a year or a little more and during that time he sometimes used the emery cloth six or seven hours, or more if it was a big job. The average time the emery cloth was used during a week would be about 16 or 18 hours for one person. The size of the emery cloth used would depend on the size of the job. The emery would gradually wear off. It would take about a minute for the emery to wear off on one spot in doing this work. He used the emery cloth by holding it in his hands against the object. That would take the scratches out of the metal and brighten it up. He says:

< < ipherg wag (jugt created by that process, enough to get our clothes full. You could see it in the air and you could see it on your clothes. It would not exactly get into your clothes, but it would be spread out in the air by flying around in the air. My face was about eighteen inches away from the object. Some of the dust would fly upward and some downward. We wore shop coats and I noticed some on the caps and I noticed dust around on the floor. The floor right by the lathe was swept up after we got through with each job. There was a janitor there that did the sweeping. He would sweep up after each job unless there was a big pile of trimmings or something near the lathe. When he swept up, the trimmings that we had cut off of the spinnings would be on the floor.”

The first time plaintiff had trouble with his lungs was along in November or December of 1924, when he started to cough, which he had never done before except when he had a cold. He kept on working until the latter part of January, 1925, when he went to Dr. Myers at Des Plaines, Illinois, and after that to Dr. Bari. He quit work in January, stayed home for about two weeks and then went to the County Hospital for several weeks. From there he went to the Municipal Sanitarium, where he was at the time of the trial.

He said that he had no hemorrhages of blood from his lungs and that the symptoms he had were just the cough and the raising of sputum. While he worked for defendant he used the machine at various things, and when he was not using the emery cloth there were other machines, 12 or 14, close by and some one else would be using the emery cloth, so that the emery polishing and buffing would be going on most of the time on one or more of the machines.

Medical "testimony was introduced to the effect that tuberculosis was one of the most widespread diseases known and is found in almost all parts of the civilized world; that it is an infectious disease and that it is usually transmitted by direct contact, drinking milk or by taking in other food which happens to have the germ in it, such as butter, cheese and tubercular meat, or in inhaling air which has the tubercular germ. About 10 per cent of all deaths in cities are brought about by tuberculosis. In practically everyone some tuberculosis development is found. Tuberculosis is not hereditary, strictly speaking. Tuberculosis is a disease produced when' the body is invaded by a germ known as the tubercle bacillus. In dwellers in cities micro-organism is practically present in 90 per cent, at least, of adults, but it is not active. It is active in only a relatively small proportion of the population. The chief sources of the disease are exposure, contact and drinking of tubercular milk. Any occupation where dust is produced is hazardous because it lights up and brings about tubercular disease by irritating the lungs or irritating the glands in the neck, but some kinds of dust are more dangerous than others. Some varieties of dust or particles have sharp edges and they damage the lung tissue to a greater degree than others, while some varieties of dust are of a poisonous nature. For instance, dust derived from zinc, brass and lead are more hazardous than just simply dust. This dust sets up an inflammation in the respiratory tract and, if the tubercular germ is present, it may lodge in the inflamed area and consumption will result. The mere presence of or inclination to tuberculosis does not always result in the disease itself. There is a difference between ordinary dust on the street and metallic dust. Metallic dust is abrasive and sometimes it is poisonous. By abrasive the witness meant cutting and that it had sharp edges. We breathe on an average about 20 times a minute and it is necessary for air to enter the lungs in order for us to live. If the air is impure by reason of dust, and there is so much impurity that the nose cannot screen it out and the lining from the bronchial tubes cannot screen it, then the lungs become invaded and they are damaged by the presence of the dust.

Plaintiff was examined by physicians who testified that X-ray pictures showed that plaintiff’s lungs were infected with tuberculosis, and this condition was also shown by an examination of plaintiff. In response to hypothetical questions, the physicians answered that, in their opinion, there might or could with reasonable medical certainty be a causal relation between the work which the hypothetical man was doing and the dust which was present and the subsequent development of tubercular disease in plaintiff’s lungs.

It is, of course, impossible in a case of this kind to prove the cause of a disease with anything like mathematical accuracy or with the certainty with which the results of other causes may be shown. Medicine is not an exact science. Its method is that of induction rather than deduction, and we think, contrary to the first contention of the defendant here, that the evidence we have recited, with a great deal of other evidence which is in the record, made a question for the jury as to whether the plaintiff contracted this disease in the course of his employment at the plant of the defendant. As to what is an occupational disease within the meaning of the statute, the answer is found in section 1 of the statute (Cahill’s St. ch. 48, If 185; SmithHurd’s Ill. Rev. St. 1927, p. 1309), which in substance provides that every employer engaged in carrying out any work or process which might produce any illness or disease peculiar to the work or process carried on, or which subjects the employees to the danger of the illness or disease incident to such work or process to which employees are not ordinarily exposed in other lines of employment, shall provide certain means for the protection of such employees from these diseases.

The evidence shows that tuberculosis is not an illness which is exclusively caused by conditions such as those under which plaintiff worked, but we think the evidence does establish that the disease of tuberculosis is an illness to which employees in the kind of work plaintiff was going are peculiarly liable. We also think that the evidence indicates that it is a disease to which employees would not be ordinarily exposed in other lines of employment, and we therefore conclude that the disease is within the definition of those to which the statute in question applies, and that plaintiff became infected therewith in the course of his employment with defendant.

The defendant next contends that the evidence fails to show that there was any violation of the Occupational Diseases Act, Cahill’s St. ch. 48, ¶ 185 et seq., by the defendant. We shall not undertake to review the evidence at length on this point. In the last analysis the question was one of fact for the jury to pass upon, and there was evidence of experts and others tending to show that there were well-known methods by which the dangers from metallic dust might have been avoided. This might have been done by means of water playing upon the work, through the system of suction blowers, or by a proper system of ventilation. None of these methods was employed or used by defendant, and we think the jury could find, if it saw fit, that there had been a wilful violation of the statute. It is next urged that the court erred in the giving and refusing of instructions. The third instruction is complained of, by which the jury was told:

“The Court instructs the jury in the years of 1924 and 1925 there was in full force and effect in the State of Illinois a statute as follows:

“All poisonous or noxious fumes or gases arising from any process, and all dust of a character injurious to the health of the persons employed, which is created in the course of a 'manufacturing process, within such factory, mill or workshop, shall be removed, as far as practicable, by either ventilating or exhaust devices.”

It is urged that, as the statute quoted is section 12 of the Health and Safety Act, Cahill’s St. ch. 48, li 154,. and as neither of the counts in plaintiff’s declaration charged a violation of that particular act, both being based entirely on the Occupational Diseases Act, Ca-hill’s St. ch. 48, ¶ 185 et seq., the instruction was erroneous. It is said that if plaintiff desired to claim a violation of the Health and Safety Act (Cahill’s St. ch. 48; Smith-Hurd’s Ill. Rev. St. ch. 48), he should have done so in a separate count, as was done in Arnell v. Superior Mirror Co., 210 Ill. App. 486. It is also urged that the instruction was erroneous within the rule announced in Wing v. Smith, 190 Ill. 275, where it was held that the giving of an instruction which recited sections of an act not applicable was prejudicial error. In that case, however, the sections recited in the instruction did not conform to the allegations of the declaration. The section here quoted does conform in our opinion. The declaration was broad enough to cover both acts. We therefore hold that the giving of this instruction was not error.

Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to give the following instruction :

“A reasonable device, means or method means a device, means or method which it is reasonably practicable for an employer to use in connection with the work or process in question. An approved device, means or method, as used in these instructions, means a device, means or method adopted and used by manufacturers engaged in similar processes.”

It is said that logically an approved device must mean one approved by the persons for whose use it was made, that is, the manufacturers. Plainly this would mean that the manufacturers would have it in their power to practically nullify the law. We do not think that such could have been the intention of the legislature.

It is urged that the evidence of the experts invaded the province of the jury and their opinions were not based upon sufficient evidence. It is also urged that the fact that the attorney for plaintiff directed the attention of the jury to the fact that certain witnesses who had appeared in behalf of defendant were members of the Brass Manufacturers Association was prejudicial, and for that reason the motion for a new trial should have been granted, and finally it is contended that the case involves an attempt to recover damages by imputing to a reasonably healthful occupation the hazards of a work of an entirely different character. We do not think there is any merit to any of these contentions. The act must be given a reasonable construction, which will tend to effect the purpose which was in the mind of the legislature when it was passed.

No good reason appearing for reversal the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

McSurely and 0 ’Connor, JJ., concur.


text:
    Karoline Seidel et al., Defendants in Error, v. Margaret Holcomb et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 32,425.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 29, 1928.
    Joseph E. Winterbotham, for plaintiff's in error.
    Harold A. Fein, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

By this writ of error Margaret and Lee Holcomb and Charles E. Boland seek to reverse a decree entered upon a bill brought by Karoline Seidel and Harold A. Fein, individually and as trustee, to foreclose a trust deed. The bill was filed June 18, 1925, and averred that on May 11, 1925, Margaret and Lee Holcomb executed a trust deed to secure an indebtedness in the sum of $18,200 evidenced by 58- notes, numbers 1 to 56 inclusive, for $100 each, payable monthly, note No. 57 for $2,000 and No. 58 for $10,600; notes Nos. 57 and 58 being payable 57 and' 58 months after date with interest at 6 per cent per annum. The bill alleged that Karoline Seidel was the owner of $13,100 face value of these notes; that Fein was the owner of note No. 7, and that Charles Boland was the owner of other of those notes to the amount of $5,000; that the premises conveyed were subject to two prior trust deeds; that Margaret Holcomb had made default in the payment of premiums for fire insurance, in the payment of interest which had matured on one of the prior incumbrances, and in the payment of note No. 1, which had become due June 11, 1925; that complainants had therefore exercised their option to declare the entire indebtedness and interest thereon due and payable and filed their bill to foreclose. Margaret and Lee Holcomb, Charles E. Eoland and unknown owner or owners were made defendants to the bill, to which was attached a copy of the trust deed.

Margaret and Lee Holcomb entered their appearance on June 25, 1925, and filed a general demurrer. Charles E. Eoland was served personally but filed no appearance, and an order of default' was entered against him. The demurrer of the Holcombs was overruled on May 17, 1926, and their default for want of an answer was taken on July 6, 1926. The cause was referred to a master, and an order of default was entered as to unknown owner or owners.

The master took the evidence and reported, finding that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, the execution of the notes Nos. 1 to 58 for the amounts as alleged in the bill, the execution and delivery of the trust deed; that complainant Karoline Seidel was the owner of notes aggregating $14,700 and of the trust deed; that the defendants had defaulted and that Karoline Seidel had elected to declare the notes due and payable. The report specifically found, “That all the rights of other parties to the cause are subject and inferior to complainant’s lien; that complainant is entitled to foreclose and to have the premises sold”; and recommended that the decree of foreclosure be entered in accordance with the finding. The report found that the sum of $1,750 was a reasonable charge for solicitor’s fees, for which the complainant, Karoline Seidel had a lien.

Objections were filed to this report by Margaret and Lee Holcomb, which were overruled, and upon the hearing before the chancellor it was ordered that they should stand as exceptions. Upon the hearing of the exceptions, the court sustained No. 3, disallowing the solicitor’s fees recommended by the master, overruled all other exceptions and entered a decree finding that there was due the complainant Karoline Seidel $16,188.05 with interest from November 9, 1926; that she was entitled to a lien for that amount against the premises, and that “That lien is prior to the right, title, interest and lien of all the parties to this cause.” The decree further directed that in default of payment of the amount found due, the premises should be sold, - and that in such case the master should retain his fees, “then pay to complainant the amount due complainant and if not sufficient he should apply such remainder in satisfaction of the amount due so far as it will reach, and report the deficiency.”

Plaintiffs in error contend in the first place that as there are two complainants, namely, Karoline Seidel and Harold Fein, while only one of these complainants recovers, the decree must be reversed since all complainants must recover or none, citing Girard v. Lehigh Stone Co., 280 Ill. 479; Daniel Boone Woolen Mills v. Laedeke, 238 Ill. App. 92, and Roeder v. Pipe, 235 Ill. App. 89.

The briefs do not tend to show that Fein was entitled to any relief. He was so entitled as trustee named in the trust deed, and as such trustee was a necessary party, but as there was no proof of any right to individual relief, it would have been proper practice to dismiss as to him.

Plaintiffs in error next contend that under the provisions of the trust deed, complainant Karoline Seidel, since the proof shows that she was the owner of only a part of the indebtedness secured by the trust deed, did not have any power, notwithstanding the defaults proved, to accelerate the maturity of the whole indebtedness. The notes secured do not grant such power. The trust deed provides as follows :

“In the event of failure so to insure, or pay taxes or assessments, or the prior incumbrances or the interest thereon when due, the grantee or the holder of said indebtedness may .procure such insurance, or pay such taxes or assessments, or discharge or purchase any tax lien or title affecting said premises or pay all prior incumbrances and the interest thereon from time to time; and all money so paid the grantors agree to repay immediately without demand, and the same with interest thereon from the date of payment at seven per cent per annum, shall be so much additional indebtedness secured hereby.

“In the event of a branch of any of the aforesaid covenants or agreements, the whole of said indebtedness, including principal and all earned interest, shall, at the option of the legal holder thereof, without notice, become immediately due and payable, and with interest thereon from time of such breach, at seven per cent per annum, shall be recoverable by foreclosure thereof, or by suit at law, or both, the same as if all of said indebtedness had then matured by express terms.”

This court is of the opinion that the power here granted is to the holder of the whole of the indebtedness to the exclusion of the owner of any part thereof, and since the undisputed evidence shows that Karoline Seidel is not the owner of the whole but, on the contrary, the owner of only a part of the indebtedness, the finding of the master’s report and the decree that she rightfully declared the whole amount due is. not sustained by the evidence.

The decree entered is also erroneous because it finds that the lien of Karoline Seidel “is prior and superior to the right, title and interest of the lien of all the parties to this cause.” Under the evidence, her lien is not prior and superior to that of Boland as the owner of part of the notes secured by the trust deed, but on the contrary his lien was of the same kind and quality as her own. It was erroneous therefore to order the property sold clear of the liens of other note holders and that the proceeds be paid to complainant to the exclusion of the other owners. Complainant is entitled (if she so elects) to the foreclosure of her lien subject to the continuing lien of other holders, as set forth in Boyer v. Chandler, 160 Ill. 394; Northern Trust Co. v. Sanford, 308 Ill. 381.

For the reasons indicated the decree is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings in conformity with the views herein expressed.

jReversed and remanded.

O’ConrroR and McSurely, JJ., concur.


text:
    Charles L. Finch, Appellee, v. Charles Carlton, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,449.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    William Friedman, for appellant; James M. Gillespie, of counsel.
    Arne B. Hummeland, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff Finch sued defendant for damages sustained, as alleged, through the negligence of defendant in driving his automobile, as a result of which it collided with a motor vehicle driven by the plaintiff. The affidavit of merits denied that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff was in the exercise of care. There was a trial by the court, a finding for plaintiff and judgment thereon for $296.05.

The accident in question occurred on May 30, 1927, at about 6 o’clock p. m., on Maple street, a public highway in Chicago extending east and west, and between LaSalle and Clark streets, public highways extending north and south and intersecting Maple street.

The proof tends to show that plaintiff at that time was driving a Studebaker automobile on the south side of Maple street about six feet from the south curb, in an easterly direction; that at the same time a Ford touring car was being driven in a westerly direction upon the north side of Maple street, and that behind this • Ford touring car the defendant was driving a Moon touring car in the same direction; that when the Ford touring car approached the alley extending north and south and intersecting Maple street at this point, the driver made a quick turn to the south or left and then to the right or north, for the purpose of entering the alley. Under these circumstances the defendant made a turn into the street to avoid hitting the car ahead of him, and in so doing he collided with plaintiff’s car with the result that the left wheels of the autos interlocked, the front bumper and the wheels of plaintiff’s car were broken, the axle bent, the fenders turned up, the tires cut, the front lamp broken, the front system put all out of line as well as the frame, and the steering wheel out.

The evidence as to the speed at which the respective automobiles were being driven is conflicting, the evidence for plaintiff tending to show that the Ford touring car and defendant’s car were going at from 25 to 30 miles an hour, while the evidence for defendant tends to show that defendant was traveling at a speed of 9 or 10 miles an hour. In this respect the finding of the court has the same weight upon review as the verdict of a jury. The finding of the court is controlling on the question of contributory negligence, unless we can hold that the finding is manifestly against the evidence, which we cannot do on the record.

Defendant further contends, however, that the direct and proximate cause of the collision was the undisputed fact that the Ford car made a turn first to the-left and then suddenly to the right in the manner described, and it is therefore urged that the negligence of the driver of this Ford car was the direct and proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff’s automobile rather than any negligence of the defendant, citing Jackson v. Burns, 203 Ill. App. 196; Gilbert v. Goralnik, 238 Ill. App. 199, to this point. In those cases, however, there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant was negligent in any respect, but there was evidence tending to show that the injury to the plaintiff resulted solely from the negligence of a third party.

We think the court could properly find that the third party, namely, the driver of the Ford, was negligent because of the manner in which he suddenly made a turn into an alley and also because of the speed at which he was driving, but there was also evidence from which the court could properly find that defendant was guilty of negligence, first, in the excessive speed at which he was driving, and, second, in his failing to keep a proper distance behind the Ford which he was trailing. It has been so held in well-considered cases. Stubbs v. Edwards, 260 Pa. 75; Blashfield Cyc. of Automobile Law, vol. 1, 455; Gornstein v. Priver, 64 Cal. App. 249.

For the purpose of showing the amount of damages sustained the court admitted evidence of the amount paid by plaintiff for repairs to his automobile, which repairs, there was proof tending to show, were made necessary by the accident. The defendant contends that the receipted bill was not competent evidence of the amount of the damages, citing Probasco v. Crane Co., 238 Ill. App. 287. As will appear from an examination of Cloyes v. Plaatje, 231 Ill. App. 183; Sunbeam Beverage Co. v. Cunningham, 242 Ill. App. 401; Roth v. Fleck, 242 Ill. App. 396, and other cases, there has been some apparent conflict in the decisions of this court upon this question. This division of the court has held that in the absence of evidence tending to discredit the transaction, such proof is prima facie sufficient, and this view has recently been approved by the Supreme Court in Byalos v. Matheson, 328 Ill. 269, 272.

As there is no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

O’Connor and McSurely, JJ., concur.


text:
    James J. Scanlon, Appellee, v. John Whalen, Administrator of the Estate of Raymond Michael Whalen, Deceased, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,579.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.

      Bassler, Bippus & Bose, for appellant.
    Samuels, Costello & Greenberg, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

This record involves a proceeding under section 2 of an act concerning insolvent debtors, approved April 10, 1872", Cahill’s St. ch. 72, If 5; Smith-Hurd’s Ill. Rev. St. 1927, ch. 72, p. 1544.

The facts in brief are that Whalen as administrator sued Scanlon in an action on the case, obtained a judgment against him and procured a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum, under which the sheriff took Scanlon, the judgment debtor, into custody. The debtor then filed a petition for release in the county court. The court heard the petition and entered an order discharging the debtor, from which the creditor administrator has appealed. Section 2 of the Insolvent Debtor’s Act, Cahill’s St. ch. 72, if 5, provides:

“When any person is arrested or imprisoned upon any process issued for the purpose of holding such person to bail upon any indebtedness, or in any civil action when malice is not the gist of the action, or when any debtor is surrendered or committed to custody by his bail in any such action, or is arrested or imprisoned upon execution in any such action, such person may be released from such arrest or imprisonment upon complying with the provisions of this Act. ’ ’

The record of the action in which judgment was obtained was offered in evidence upon the hearing. The petitioner contended and the trial court held that malice was not the gist of the action disclosed by that record, and the respondent creditor argues here that malice was the gist of the action and therefore the court erred in ordering the discharge of the tortfeasor. That is the question to be decided by this court.

The evidence discloses that in the suit brought by the administrator a declaration was filed consisting of five counts. These counts in substance alleged that on July 18, 1925, the administrator’s intestate, a boy 8 years of age, received injuries from which he died as a result of the negligent manner in which the defendant, Scanlon, drove and operated his automobile. It is agreed that four of the counts charged simply negligence. The controversy is concerned with the fifth count which alleged that Scanlon “owned, possessed and controlled a certain motor vehicle or automobile and drove and operated the same in a northerly direction along and upon a certain public street or highway known as Cicero Avenue, at or near its intersection with a certain other public street or highway known as Kinzie Street, both in the City, County and State aforesaid; and it then and there became and was the duty of the defendant to use and exercise ordinary care in the management, use, equipment and operation of said automobile, and to have and exercise due care and regard for the right and safety of others lawfully and rightfully in and upon said highway.

“Plaintiff further avers that on the day aforesaid, his intestate, Eaymond Michael Whalen, was then a child of the age of eight years, and was in the act of crossing said Cicero Avenue at or near its said intersection with Kinzie Street.

“Plaintiff further avers that the defendant, not regarding his duty in that behalf, did then and there drive and operate his said automobile or motor vehicle, in a reckless, wilful and wanton manner, although the defendant knew the plaintiff’s intestate, a child of tender years, was then and there in a position of grave danger and by reason of the defendant’s said wilful and wanton negligence and as a direct result thereof, defendant’s said automobile or motor vehicle ran into, upon, against and over the plaintiff’s intestate in a wilful and wanton manner, throwing him. to the street or pavement there, by means whereof and of the defendant’s said wanton and wilful negligence plaintiff’s intestate was wantonly and wilfully hurt and injured, and afterwards, on to-wit: July 21, 1925, at the City, County and State aforesaid, and as a proximate result of said injuries, he died.”

To these counts a plea of the general issue and a special plea denying operation and ownership of the automobile were filed. The cause was tried by a jury which heard the evidence and returned this verdict: “We the jury find the defendant guilty and assess the plaintiff’s damages in the sum of five thousand dollars.” Upon this verdict judgment was entered, upon which a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum was issued.

No special interrogatories were submitted to the jury, and upon the hearing in the county court no evidence was offered in petitioner’s behalf tending to show under which count the verdict of the jury was returned.

It is the contention of the. respondent that the fifth count charged malice within the meaning of that term as implied in the Insolvent Debtors’ Act, Cahill’s St. ch. 72; that, since the general verdict was responsive to all the counts of the declaration, the record prima facie established that malice was the gist of the action, and that in the absence of further evidence for the petitioner he should have been remanded to the custody of the sheriff. Jernberg v. Mix, 199 Ill. 254, and Kaplan v. Williams, 245 Ill. App. 542, are the principal cases relied upon.

The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the administrator fails to observe the clear distinction between decisions of the courts which interpret counts in a declaration for the purpose of determining whether they may be held to charge such wilfuliiess and wantonness as "will prevent the interposition of contributory negligence as a defense to the action, and those cases which construe section 2 of the Insolvent Debtors’ Act, Cahill’s St. ch. 72, ft 5, for the purpose of determining whether or not malice is the gist of the action within the meaning of that section.

By the common law, a judgment for injuries accompanied by force subjected the defendant to imprisonment by a writ of capias ad respondendum. The remedy was extended by statute to other cases, and the constitutional provision abolishing imprisonment for debt does not extend to judgments entered in actions for tort. People v. Walker, 286 Ill. 541. It has been held that malice is the gist of an action in trespass for an assault and battery (In re Murphy, 109 Ill. 31; In re Mullin, 118 Ill. 551); that it is not the gist of an action brought by a plaintiff for the alleged seduction of his daughter (People ex rel. Liverpool v. Greer, 43 Ill. 213); that it is the gist of an action where a defendant wrongfully and dishonestly withdrew his money after giving a draft to one who had advanced money upon it (First Nat. Bank of Flora v. Burkett, 101 Ill. 391); that it is not the gist of an action where a declaration simply alleged that an insolvent defendant had obtained goods on credit agreeing that he would pay for them at the expiration of the credit agreed upon, there being no representation of fact past or existing (Kitson v. Farwell, 132 Ill. 327); that it is not the gist of an action in counts which are simply in trover, but it is in a count which charged that the defendant, with malicious intent to cheat and to defraud, had deposited certain checks with the defendant upon a certain day and suspended business the following day (Jernberg v. Mix, 199 Ill. 254); that it is the gist of an action for the conversion of personal property where the statement of claim averred the same to have been done wilfully, maliciously, tortiously and fraudulently “with an intent to cheat and defraud” (Seney v. Knight, 292 Ill. 206); that it is the gist of an action on the case where the defendants collected accounts belonging to the plaintiff and wrongfully and fraudulently converted the same to their own use in violation of a trust agreement. (Greener v. Brown, 323 Ill. 221.)

It was held in Jernberg v. Mix, supra, as in the other cases cited, that where there are several counts in a declaration, some of which state a case of which malice ■ is not the gist and other counts of which malice is the gist, the judgment is not conclusive; that in such a case the petitioner is not estopped by the judgment to show that the verdict and judgment were based upon the counts in which malice was not the gist of the action, but that prima facie such a record shows malice and that it devolves upon the petitioner to bring himself within the provisions of the statute. It was also said in the Jernberg case:

“The term ‘malice,’ as used in the act in question, applies to that class of wrongs which are inflicted with an evil intent, design or purpose. It implies that the guilty party was actuated by improper or dishonest motives, and‘requires the intentional perpetration of an injury or a wrong on another. ’ ’

It was further said: “The gist of an action is the essential ground or principal subject matter, without which the action could not be maintained. Gould’s PI. chap. 3, sec. 8.”

Statements of law substantially similar are made in all the cases.

It would appear, therefore, that the controlling question in this case is whether the fifth count of the declaration here offered in evidence states a cause of action of which malice is the gist. If it does, then under the decisions it was incumbent upon the petitioner to offer further evidence tending to show that the verdict returned was not responsive to that count. On the other hand, if malice is not the gist of the action stated in that count, the petitioner was entitled to be discharged upon the record.

In construing the count, we think it must be taken most strongly against the pleador, since the personal liberty of the petitioner is involved. In Kitson v. Farwell, supra, the court said:

“The term ‘malice,’ as used in the statute under consideration, is not to be considered in the sense of hatred or ill-will, but of malus animus, and as denoting that the party is actuated by improper or dishonest motives. (Mitchell v. Jenkins, 5 B. & A. 594.) It implies a wrong inflicted on another, "with an evil intent, design or purpose.”

The opinion in that case quoted with approval a statement in First Nat. Bank v. Burkett, supra, in which, discussing the subject of malice as used in this statute, the court said:

“It requires the intentional perpetration of an injury or wrong on another. The wrong and the intention to commit the injury are necessary to deprive the party of the right to a discharge from arrest or imprisonment.”

In Greener v. Brown, supra, the Supreme Court said:

“Malice, as that term is used in cases of this character, does not necessarily mean hatred or ill-will, but pertains to wrongs which are inflicted with an evil intent, design or purpose. Such malice may be shown by showing that the guilty party was actuated by dishonest motives with intent to perpetrate an injury.”

In Levy v. Schikowski, 239 Ill. App. 447, the third division of this court held that a declaration in which the counts charged that the defendant caused the injury by “carelessly, negligently and wilfully” driving his automobile made out a prima facie case in which malice was not necessarily the gist of the action.

In Stoike v. Bonasera, 243 Ill. App. 281, this court held that a count which charged the defendant with operating a motor vehicle at a high rate of speed, “with gross disregard for the safety of the life and limb of the plaintiff,” did not state a cause of action of which malice was the gist, and it was also held that a count which charged that the defendant “then and there wilfully and wantonly and with gross disregard for the safety of the life and limb of the plaintiff, moved and operated the said motor vehicle at a high rate of speed, to-wit,” etc., did not show an action of which malice was the gist, it appearing that the plaintiff in that case had requested an instruction, which was given, to the effect that in order to show that the conduct of the defendant was wanton and wilful and in disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, it was not necessary to prove that the defendant was actuated by ill-will or an intention to injure'the plaintiff.

In Kaplan v. Williams, supra, the petitioner was defendant in an action where the declaration consisted of five counts, one of which charged general negligence in the driving of an automobile and three others of driving at an excessive rate of speed in violation of the statute. The third count charged that the defendant “so wilfully, wantonly and maliciously” drove the automobile that it ran against the plaintiff causing his death. There was a motion to find the defendant not guilty as to the third count, which was denied. A special interrogatory was given to the jury as follows:

“Did the defendant (Kaplan) wantonly and wilfully propel and operate said automobile in such a manner that it ran into and against the deceased, as alleged in the third count of plaintiff’s declaration?”

The jury answered this question in the affirmative. The petitioner offered no evidence tending to show that the verdict of the jury was based upon any other than the third count, and the court there held that the term “malice” as used in cases of this kind pertains to “wrongs which are inflicted with an evil intent, design or purpose,” and held that malice was the gist of the action, quoting with approval Hull v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 76 S. C. 278; Palmer v. Smith, 147 Wis. 70, to the effect that the word'“wantonly” implied turpitude and “such a degree of rashness as evinces a total want of care, or willingness to destroy, although destruction itself may have been unintentional.”

In Abbrassart v. Bouchard, 241 Ill. App. 484, it appeared that the petitioner was a defendant in an action on the case for personal injuries where the declaration consisted of seven counts, six of which charged ordinary negligence in various forms, while the other count charged that the defendant “wilfully and wantonly drove” his automobile against the person of the plaintiff, inflicting wounds, cuts and bruises. The petitioner offered the record and also evidence tending to show the friendly relation existing between himself, the injured boy and the father of the boy. The court, reviewing authorities, said that the term “malice” as used in the Insolvent Debtors’ Act, Ca-hill’s St. ch. 72, “applies to that class of wrongs which are inflicted with an evil intent, design or purpose.” It implies that the guilty party was actuated by improper or dishonest motives and requires the intentional perpetration of an injury or a wrong on another, and the court held that it was obvious that the cause of action was one which could have been sustained without finding that malice was the gist of it.

By the review of these authorities we are persuaded that there is a clear distinction between those cases in which the courts of review have been called upon to determine whether a particular count states a good cause of action for wilful and wanton negligence in such manner as to preclude the interposition of contributory negligence as a defense and the cases in which, as here, the courts are called upon to construe this section of the Insolvent Debtors’ Act, Cahill’s St. ch. 72, If 5. The distinction is (as we think all the cases show) that an intention to injure is not the gist of such action for wanton and wilful negligence, while such intention is necessary in an action of which malice is the gist within the meaning of the statute. We think that it is apparent that it was not the intention of the pleader to charge in this fifth count intentional wrongdoing or a specific desire or purpose to injure the respondent’s intestate. The count charges that in the operation of his automobile the petitioner was reckless; that he operated it in a wilful and wanton manner and that he did so although he knew that respondent’s intestate was in a position of great danger, but that is very far from charging a specific intention to injure.

Since the liberty of petitioner is at stake, the construction must not be a narrow one against him, but one that is fairly liberal in his favor, and malice is not indispensable to the cause of action which is stated, for under the allegation of the fifth count the action would be maintainable without any allegation of malice. Indeed, it is significant that the count does not in any word or phrase expressly (nor, we think, by inference) charge malice. We therefore conclude that the petitioner was entitled to be discharged, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

O’Connor and McSurely, JJ., concur.