text:
    Frank Gallo, appellee, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,468.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. A. E. Golan and Samuel L. Golan, for appellee; Samuel L. Golan, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Presiding Justice

license: Public Domain

text:
    Genevieve Kennedy, appellee, v. Frank E. Carey, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,493.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    John A. Bloomingston, for appellant. H. H. Patterson, for appellee; Edmund' C. Maurer, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice

Gridley delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

text:
    Acorn Building and Loan Association, appellant, v. Charles Spalenka and Anna Spalenka, appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,507.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    J. Edward Jones, for appellant. Hershenson & Hershenson, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Scanlan

text:
    K. Blankstein, defendant in error, v. Albert J. Horan and William Kleine, trading as Loyola Garage, plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 37,293.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Benjamin E. Cohen, for plaintiffs in error; Mayer Goldberg and Harold R. Gordon, of counsel. Seymour R. Blankstein, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    First National Bank and Trust Company, appellant, v. Baker, Fentress and Company et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,424.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 13, 1935.
    Ekern & Meyers, for appellant; Luther F. Binkley and William E. Mooney, of counsel. Henry Fitts, for appellees; Samuel Topliff, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    In re estate of Robert M. Bowes, deceased. Robert B. Bowes, administrator of the estate of Robert M. Bowes, deceased, appellee. Irma A. Ulm, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,465.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Marshall Solberg and Kellam Foster, for appellant. Marguerite Hartman and Hubbard, Baker & Rice, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Seanlan

text:
    Harry L. Wells et al., appellees, v. Central Republic Trust Company et al., defendants. Central Republic Trust Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,542.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Fisher, Boyden, Bell, Boyd & Marshall, for appellant; David .A. Watts and William F. Kenney, of counsel. Backer, Sewell & Rice, for appellees; Walter L. Backer and William J. Pretsehold, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Mandel H. Harris, appellant, v. Mark Jampolis et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,614.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Aaron Soble, for appellant. I. E. Segal, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Jean S. Geary, appellee, v. The National Tea Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,627.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 13, 1935.
    Kelly, Pratt & Zeiss, for appellant; Will A. Kelly, of counsel Hart & Shomberg, for appellee; Victor P. Frank, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Robert C. Hooper, appellee, v. Scottish Union and National Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,676.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Hicks & Folonie, for appellant. Edwin Hamilton, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Abe Poncher, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,717.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Louis Greenberg and Martin S. Gerber, for plaintiff in error. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth and John T. Gallagher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Sullivan

text:
    Wabash Railway Company, plaintiff in error, v. Gus Dreyfuss, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 37,289.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 13, 1935.
    John Gibson Hale, for plaintiff! in error. Blanksten & Lansing, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John A. Bender, appellee, v. H. H. Seff Advertising Company et al., on appeal of Outdoor Advertising Agency of America, Inc., and Dorothy Marie Seff, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,508.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Doming, Jarrett & Mulfinger and Warren E. King, for appellants. David Raymond, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Fred Meyer, appellee, v. Ludlow Typograph Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,537.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 13, 1935.
    Gann, Seeord & Stead, for appellant; Guy Van Sehaick, of counsel. Wilhartz, Hirseh & Sehanfarber, for appellee; Julian H. Levi, Eugene H. Nirdlinger and George S. Freudenthal, Jr., of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank A. Aoskad, appellant, v. Carl Thorgersen and Hans Chr. Ericksen, appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,549.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Edward J. McCarthy, for appellant; Maxfield Weisbrod, of counsel. A, S. & E. W. Froehlieh, for appellees; S. B. Rosenzweig, of counsel,
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    C. L. Noruk, appellee, v. Michael Olyniec et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,560.

      Opinion filed February 1, 1935.
    Coburn, Kearney & Coburn, for appellants; John J. Coburn, of counsel. Arthur J. Hughes, for appellee; Frank Michels, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court..


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

text:
    Harold J. Green, plaintiff in error, v. Margareth Jarosz, also known as Margaret Sarossy, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 37,190.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    David H. Sokolow, for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Herman H. Becker, defendant in error, v. Charles A. Beck et al., plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 37,219.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 25, 1935.
    Fred W. Story, for plaintiffs in error. Richard S. Folsom and Jacob G. Grossberg, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Dora Swidler, appellee, v. Tower Automobile Corporation, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,239.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Sonnenschein, Berkson, Lautmann, Levinson & Morse, for appellant; Herbert M. Lautmann and Jesse H. Brown, of counsel. Gold & Liebman, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Walter Woznicki, a minor, by Mathew Woznicki, his next friend, defendant in error, v. C. G. Osterberg, trading as C. G. Osterberg and Son, defendant. Carl E. Osterberg, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,290.

      Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Peden, Melaniphy, Ryan & Andreas, for plaintiff in error; John C. Melaniphy, of counsel. Charles C. Spencer, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Oscar Gottschalk, appellant, v. Anna Reif and Stella Nasiopulos, defendants. Anna Reif, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,353.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Andrew Rost, Jr., for appellant. Thaddeus R. Diadul, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lubertus Koster, appellee, v. Chas. H. Brandt and Company, Inc., appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,362.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    McDonald, Pringle & Richmond, for appellant; Lyle L. Richmond, of counsel. Gabel & Gabel, for appellee; Charles R. Gabel, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank R. Eager, appellee, v. Taber Mill, Inc., appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,478.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 25, 1935.
    David A. Watts, for appellant; John W. Munro, of counsel. Castle, Osborn & Weiss, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Hall

text:
    Nathan Geller, plaintiff in error, v. United States Underwriters Company, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 37,242.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Harold A. Fein, for plaintiff in error; Mordi R. Kallick, of counsel. G. F. Engelbreit, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Hall

.delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The West Side Trust and Savings Bank of Chicago, appellant, v. B. Arshan or Orshan, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,246.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Thomas J. Carroll, for appellant.- David H. Brill, for appellee; Maurice Greiman, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ida J. Hodge, appellee, v. Evening American Publishing Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,318.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 25, 1935.
    Edward G. Woods, for appellant; Hurt J. Salomon and E. D. Salinger, of counsel. Joseph D. Ryan and Louis P. Miller, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Elizabeth Moss, appellee, v. Federal Life Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,333.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Rehearing denied and opinion modified February 25, 1935.
    Eckert & Peterson, for appellant; Tom Leeming, of counsel. Dillard B. Baker, for appellee; Thomas J. Mullen and James H. Christensen, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the oifinion of the court.


text:
    Isabelle Glomb, administratrix of the estate of Walter Glomb, deceased, appellee, v. Chicago Motor Coach Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,356.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Arthur J. Donovan, for appellant; John E. Hehoe and Walter N. Murray, of counsel. V. Russell Donaghy and Leo G. Hana, for
    appellee. .
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Arnold Fenner et al., defendants, on appeal of Philip Conley, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of Anna Jaroszewicz, deceased, appellant, v. Arnold Fenner, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,376.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 25, 1935.
    Joseph F. Elward, for appellant. A. F. W. Siebel, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Wilson

text:
    Alexander Grant et al., defendants in error, v. John A. Heist, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,631.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 25, 1935.
    Henry N. Shabsin, for plaintiff in error; Maurice L. Davis, of counsel. Osborne, Kline & MeGurren, for defendants in error; Wilson & Kline, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Chicago Title and Trust Company, appellee, v. D. L. Butow, trading as Butow System Service, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,642.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Bennison F. Bartel, for appellant. Green & Costigan, for appellee; William Creighton Wines, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. William F. Jahn, appellant, v. City of Chicago et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,666.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Rehearing denied February 25, 1935.
    Roy J. Egan, for appellant. William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, and Quin O’Brien, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William Moisant for use of Crescent Furniture Company, appellee, v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,678.

      Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. Clarence A. Samuel, for appellee. 1
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Christ Anschutz, appellee, v. Charles Gabel, Sr., appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,706.
    Opinion filed February 13, 1935.
    Cassels, Potter & Bentley, for appellant; Ralph F. Potter and Kenneth B. Hawkins, of counsel. Guy C. Guerine, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Richard L. Williams, appellant, v. Abraham J. Hennings, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,667.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Urion, Bishop, Sladkey & Boutell, for appellant; Jerome J. Sladkey and Y. R. Grundman, of counsel. George Gillette, Cassius A. Scranton and Peabody, Westbrook, Watson & Stephenson, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

text:
    Marcela Yurgel, administratrix of the estate of Joseph Skabitski, appellee, v. The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,736.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. David J. Murphy and Louis J. Mark, for appellee; Michael J. Levenson, Jr., of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    American Agency Company, appellant, v. Henry L. Lemons, Inc., appellee. Continental Construction Corporation, garnishee. The First National Bank and Trust Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,747.

      Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Rehearing denied March 11, 1935.
    Henry G. Ferncase and O. Sidney Van Duzer, for appellant. Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for appellee First Nat. Bank & Trust Co.; Carl Meyer, David F. Rosenthal and Jacob X. Schwartz, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff in error, v. Patrick Marquez, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 37,778.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for plaintiff in error; Edward E. Wilson and Amos P. Scruggs, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel. Alfred O’Connor, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Meyer Greenberg, defendant in error, v. H. S. Gratch, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,839.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Arthur J. Goldberg, for plaintiff in error. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth and John T. Gallagher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Emily Marchetta and Michael Marchetta, appellants, v. Maria Nardella, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,848.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Arthur E. Walsh, for appellants. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice MeSurely

text:
    Lake Shore Country Club, appellee, v. Horace L. Brand et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,685.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    John J. Healy and John H. S. Lee, for certain appellants. Ernest Saunders, for certain other appellants. Julius Moses, Frederic Burn-ham and Walter Bachraeh, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice McSurely

text:
    Harris Trust and Savings Bank, as executor of the estate of Albert Merrill Coit, deceased, defendant in error, v. Robert H. Coit et al., defendants. Alice Bovard, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,690.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Thomas C. McConnell and Owen Rail, for plaintiff in error; C. Graydon Megan, of counsel. Wm. F. Peter, for defendant in error. Samuel S. Holmes, for Robert H. Coit and Charles G. Coit.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Anna Olson, appellant, v. South Chicago Savings Bank, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,775.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Peden, Melaniphy, Ryan & Andreas, for appellant; Thomas J. Peden, Gerald Ryan and John C. Melaniphy, of counsel. Sehnaekenberg, Hansen & Towle, for appellee; Elmer J. Schnaekenberg, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Egnat Philips, appellee, v. Charles Pfander, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,845.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Myer H. Gladstone, for appellant. Eugene Bernstein, for appellee; Maxfield Weisbrod, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Hatchett

text:
    Charles G. Morgenroth and Marie Morgenroth, appellees, v. Midland Oil Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,594.
    McSurely, J., dissenting.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Cassels, Potter & Bentley and Edward J. Rothman, for appellant; Ralph F. Potter, Leslie H. Vogel and E. Douglas Schwantes, of counsel. Bernard W. Vinissky and Julius S. Neale, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Hatchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Matehett

text:
    John R. Mauff, appellee, v. Arthur W. Cutten, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,643.
    O’Connor, P. J., dissenting.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Rehearing denied March 11, 1935.
    Ryan, Condon & Livingston, for appellant; James G. Condon and John M. Tuohy, of counsel. Townley, Wild, Campbell & Clark, for appellee; Morris Townley, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Malcolm C. Most, appellee, v. Case-Moody Pie Corporation and Frank Dillon, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,687.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Judah, Reiehmann, Trumbull, Cox & Stern, Charles R. and Bruce E, Brown, for appellants. Charles C. Spencer, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: . Mr. Justice Matehett

text:
    Margaret Devereaux et al., appellees, v. George Jordan et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,704.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Cannon & Poage, for appellants; James K. McVey, of counsel. Michael L. Carmody, for appellees.
   . Mr. Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Albert K. Orschel, appellee, v. Union Indemnity Company et al., appellees, on appeal of United States of America, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,730.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Dwight H. Green, United State’s Attorney, for appellant; John J. Moreschi, Assistant United State’s Attorney, of counsel. Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Cole and Wilhartz, Hirsch & Sehanfarber, for appellee Albert K. Orschel; Edward R. Johnston, Samuel E. Hirsch and J. Robert Cohler, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Matcliett

text:
    Jess E. Dibble, appellee, v. Oscar Nelson Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,739.

      MeSurely, J., dissenting.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Schuyler, Weinfeld & Hennessy, for appellant; Paul B. Edelstein and Howard D. Moses, of counsel. Kenneth F. Simpson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matcliett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    D. D. Bell, appellee, v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,771.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. Jones, Key & Chapman, for appellee; John Wm. Chapman, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matcliett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ena Welch, appellant, v. Thomas A. Walpole, as administrator of the estate of Emma Swigart, deceased, et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,799.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Rehearing denied March 11, 1935.
    Charles J. Trainor, for appellant. Werner W. Schroeder, John F. Voight, Whitty & McGah and Thomas A. Walpole, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Matcliett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Blackstone Shop., Inc., appellant, v. Jessica M. Lasher, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,851.
    Opinion filed February 25, 1935.
    Aaron Soble, for appellant; Irving Goodman, of counsel. John Elliott Byrne, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matcliett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    T. J. Keegan et al., appellants, v. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,934.

      Opinion filed March 11, 1935.
    Rehearing stricken March 25, 1935.
    .Harrington & McDonnell, for appellants; Joseph T. Harrington, of counsel. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, and William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, for appellees; William J. Tuohy, Jacob Shamberg, Brendan J. O’Brien and Gerald E. Hornidge, Assistant State’s Attorneys, Otto F. Weiner and William V. Daly, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    George Bambakaris, appellee, v. L. O. Thieme, trading as L. O. Thieme and Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,879.
    Opinion filed March 11, 1935.
    William H. Herbert, for appellant. Ader & Ader, for appellee; David B. Rothstein, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Dora H. Preston, appellant, v. Henry P. Knight, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,901.
    Opinion filed March 11, 1935.
    A. V. Smith and Ray E. Thomas, for appellant; Miller, Gorham, Wales & Adams, for appellee; Edward R. Adams and Herbert C. DeYoung, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Waleria Kasprzyk, appellee, v. Rose Belakiewicz et al., appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,945.
    Opinion filed March 11, 1935.
    Rehearing denied March 25, 1935.
    Danaher & Garriott, for appellant. Joseph F. Elward, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Seymour Stedman et al., plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 37,210.
    Opinion filed March 11, 1935.
    A. C. Lewis and E. S. Feinstein, for plaintiffs in error. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, J. Albert Woll and Henry B. Seyfarth, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Hatchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Orlean Liston Brown Johnson et al., appellants, v. First Union Trust and Savings Bank, as executor and trustee under the last will and testament of William L. Brown, deceased, et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 38,022.
    Opinion filed March 20, 1935.
    Rehearing denied March 26, 1935.
    Kirkland, Fleming, Green & Martin, Taylor, Miller, Busch & Boy-den and Urion, Bishop, Sladkey & Boutell, for appellants; Weymouth Kirkland, Francis X. Busch, Howard Ellis, J. Fred Reeve and Preston Boyden, of counsel. William Beye, Royal B. Cushing, Ashcraft & Ashcraft, Rosenthal, Hamill & Wormser, Butler, Pope, Ballard & Biting and Tenney, Harding, Sherman & Rogers, for appellees; Willard L. King and Thomas E. Fiske, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Matchett

text:
    Elizabeth H. Manning, respondent, v. F. W. Woolworth Company and Irene Leonard Prueitt, petitioners.
    Gen. No. 37,978.
    Opinion filed March 26, 1935.
    Rehearing denied and supplemental opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Robertson, Crowe & Spence, for petitioners; Burt A. Crowe and Ednyfed H. Williams, of counsel. John A. Bloomingston, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

text:
    Charles P. Campbell and Marshall Campbell, defendants in error, v. William T. Alden et al., plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 37,419.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1935.
    Alden, Latham & Young, for certain plaintiffs in error. A. W. Martin and Edward H. S. Martin, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Felix Matarrese, defendant in error, v. Dr. Attilio Monaco, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,431.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    John O. Wagner, for plaintiff in error. Boceo De Stefano, for de- t fendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis M. Shapiro, appellee, v. Robert Edelson, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,556.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Edelson & Paullin and George S. Lavin, for appellant; J. Henry Aronson, of counsel. Myer N. Rosengard, for appellee; Seymour Rady, of counsel. '
   Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank Steininger, appellee, v. Beatrice Creamery Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,619.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    W. K. Kidwell, for appellant. Dayton, Lyons & Jacobs, for appellee; Wyatt Jacobs, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Bessie Cohen, appellee, v. Meyer Pikowski and Bertha Pick, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,645.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Joseph A. Huston, for appellants. Esther Melnick and Abraham Teitelbaum, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr'. Presiding Justice Friend

text:
    Joseph J. Feller, appellee, v. Sterling Casualty Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,658.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Lewis D. Ross, for appellant; Roy S. Gaskill, of counsel. Johnson, Pense & Brandell, for appellee; Helmer E. Brandell, of counsel.
   Mr'. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles N. Ash, appellant, v. Theo. B. Robertson Products Company et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,711.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1935.
    Robert L. Floyd and Lester E. Williams, for appellant. Arthur J. Goldberg and Challenger & Shapiro, for appellees; Arthur J. Goldberg and Joseph Randall Shapiro, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Mary Richardson, administratrix of the estate of Roberta Guyton, deceased, appellee, v. Metropolitan Funeral System Association, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,720.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1935.
    Edward H. Morris, for appellant. Vivian Wagner, for appellee; Daniel D. Carmell, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Alex Reinowski, appellee, v. Guy A. Richardson, as receiver of Chicago Railways Company, etc., et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,745.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Frank L. Kriete, Warner H. Robinson and Arthur J. Donovan, for appellants; John R. Guilliams, of counsel. Greenfield & Reiff and Charles C. Spencer, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Friend

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    David Lipman, appellant, v. Arthur V. Goebel and Edward Schatz, appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,361.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    John B. King and B. B. Chodash, for appellant. Theodore Sharp and James B. MeKeon, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Raymond E. Blackwood, appellant, v. Frederick H. Froemke, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,589.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Frederick A. Brown, for appellant; G. Gale Roberson, of counsel. Ernest C. Reniff, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Aetna Acceptance Company, plaintiff in error, v. George M. Rozcznialski, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 37,641.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1935.
    William S. Kleinman, for plaintiff in error. K. B. Czarnecki, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Rudolph E. Karow, appellant, v. Paul Ellguth et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,741.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Elmer W. Arch, for appellant. A. J. Calcagno and Van Alen Blister, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Isaak Karish, appellee, v. James Kernes, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,800.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Klenha & Greenfield, for appellant; William E. Anderle, of counsel. Abrams, Sherman & Lewis, for appellee; Clyde C. Fisher, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John P. Folsom, appellee, v. Linda B. Titus Knox and Sidney B. Knox, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,810.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Walter O. Wellman, for appellants. Geo. B. Holmes and Walter R. Titzel, Jr., for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Clarise E. Pryde, appellee, v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, appellant.
    Gen. No. 36,892.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1935.
    Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for appellant; Frederic Burnham and Miles G. Seeley, of counsel. David K. Tone and Morse Ives, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Teresa M. Gottschalk, plaintiff in error, v. Fred Becklenberg and Maria Becklenberg, defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 37,411.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Hubert E. Page, Raymond M. Smith and R. H. Wehmhoff, for plaintiff in error; Hubert E. Page and R. H. Wehmhoff, of counsel. Shulman, Shulman & Abrams, for defendants in error; Meyer Abrams, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Edward H. Morris, receiver for the Binga State Bank, appellant, v. Adelbert H. Roberts, Sr., appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,547.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    James B. Cashin, for appellant; Thomas P. Harris, of counsel. Albert B. George, for appellee; Sidney A. Jones, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Enterprise Transfer Company, appellant, v. Anna Trentadue Favia, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,595.

      Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1935.
    Hogan & Simon, for appellant. Earl J. Walker, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William Billos, defendant in error, v. Ladislav (alias Walter) Pohl and Anna Pohl, plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 37,622.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1935.
    Robert E. Cantwell, Jr., for plaintiffs in error; Martin W. Grosse, of counsel. William A. Morrow, for defendant in error; Robert L. Elliott, Jr., of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank Taglia, administrator of the estate of Fiorentina Taglia, deceased, appellee, v. Societa Agricola Operaia S. Cristoforo E. Maria Vergine Incoronata de Ricigliano, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,637.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 9, 1935.
    B. M. Steiner, for appellant. Irving Breakstone, for appellee; Manuel Weisman, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Vincent Formusa, appellee, v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,662.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    M. J. Haberkorn, for appellant. Tannenbaum, Polikoff & Schmidt, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr, .Justice Sullivan

text:
    Gertrude Fisher, appellee, v. Thomas H. McClure, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,691.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    O’Brien & Hanrahan, for appellant. Root & Miller, for appellee,
   Mr, .Justice Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court,


author: Mr. Justice 'Sullivan

text:
    Anna MacDonald, appellee, v. Roy H. MacDonald, defendant, on appeal of A. G. Dicus, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,748.
    Opinion filed March 29, 1935.
    A. G. Dicus, pro se. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice 'Sullivan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff in error, v. John Green, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 37,784.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for plaintiff in error; Edward E. Wilson and Amos P. Scruggs, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel. No appearance for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Grant C. Osborne v. Robert J. Kroschel et al. William B. Robinson, Jr., appellee. A. G. Dicus and F. W. Fraser, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,857.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    A. G. Dicus, pro se. Edwin Hamilton, for appellant F. W. Fraser. John W. Browning, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John F. Steil and Frieda Steil, appellees, v. County of Cook, appellant. Desplaines State Bank, appellee, v. County of Cook, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,873.
    Gen. Nos. 37,874, 37,875.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Gerald R. Gorman and Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for appellant; Frederic Burnham, Gerald R. Gorman, Frank D. Mayer and Miles G. Seeley, of counsel. Lawlor, Walsh & Bernstein, for appellees; Edwin D. Lawlor, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    G. R. High v. R. G. Lydy, Inc. and R. L. Hughes, appellants. Finance Credit Corporation, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,883.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 15, 1935.
    Markheim, Parker & Miller, for appellants; Wallace R. Sollo, of counsel. I. W. Kaufman, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John H. Steinberger, appellee, v. Marion S. Fink, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,891.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Pringle & Fearing, for appellant. Welch & Hoffman, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Chicago Title and Trust Company, complainant, v. William Walsh et al., defendants. Walter A. Hagen, appellee, v. William L. O’Connell, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,908.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Markman, Donovan & Sullivan, for appellant; Charles E. Loy and John A. O’Neil, of counsel. John W. Morsbach, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Harry Cross, appellee, v. Missouri Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,987.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Channing L. Sentz, for appellant. John R. McCabe and Harry Hoffman, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. George Bradovitch, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 38,002.

      Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    W. G. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth and John T. Gallagher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Manuel Roberts, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 38,003.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    W. G. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth and John T. Gallagher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Henry W. Gottschalk, appellee, v. Harold Shlensky, appellant.
    Gen. No. 38,028.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Rehearing denied and opinion slightly modified April 15, 1935.
    Irving L. Block, for appellant. Edelson & Paullin, for appellee; Hyland J. Paullin and J. Henry Aronson, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Edward Ptacek, appellee, v. H. J. Coleman et al., defendants, on appeal of H. J. Coleman and H. J. Clark, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,866.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 15, 1935.
    Harry A. Biossat, for appellants. R. B. Salmon, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the eourt.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Walter J. McCoy, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,877.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    W. G. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, Henry E. Seyfarth and Amos P. Scruggs, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the eourt.


text:
    Annette M. Yancey, appellee, v. Benjamin F. Yancey, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,886.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Arvid B. Tanner and Ferris E. Hurd, for appellant; Butler, Pope, Ballard & Biting, of counsel. Robert E. Cantwell, Jr., for appellee; Martin W. Grosse, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Hatchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    O. Maass, appellant, v. H. J. Baltes, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,917.
    Opinion filed April 1, 1935.
    Edward R. Finnegan, for appellant; J. J. Buckley, of counsel. Ward, Gallagher & Rabold, for appellee; Frederick R. Rabold, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Hatchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Mary L. Robinson, appellee, v. Federal Life Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,457.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Jerome F. Kutak, for appellant. Emil N. Levin, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Liberty Bank of Chicago, guardian of the estate of Raymond Rivera, a minor, and Joseph D. Shane, appellees, v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,466.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    John A. Bloomingston, for appellant. Joseph D. Shane, for appellees; Gilbert A. Siegel, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Hehel

text:
    Catherine Grimes, defendant in error, v. Henry F. Connolly, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,494.

      Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    James L. Henry, for plaintiff in error. Michael J. Maloney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hehel

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    T. J. Forschner Contracting Company, defendant in error, v. The Sanitary District of Chicago, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,524.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    William Rothinann, Lawrence J. Penlon and William C. Oehlsen, for plaintiff in error. Burke, Jackson & Burke and Pomeroy & Martin, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Farnham-Kuhn Company, now known as Kuhn-Saipe and Company, appellee, v. Owen R. Trayner and Virginia Trayner, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,535.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 22, 1935.
    Marshall E. Gallion, for appellants. Harry P. Bovshow, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Pictorial Paper Package Corporation, defendant in error, v. National Mineral Company, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 37,606.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Maurice H. Daniels, for plaintiff in error. Edna Rowe and Fred B. Shearer, for defendant in error; Barnabas F. Sears, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Jean S. Geary, appellee, v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,616.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Ashcraft & Ashcraft, for appellant; Russell F. Locke and Rufus D. Beach, of counsel. Hart & Shomberg, for appellee; Victor P. Frank, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Wright and Company, appellee, v. Raymond F. Moore and Harry Bairstow, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,623.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 22, 1935.
    Luster & Luster, for appellants; Julian J. Luster, of counsel. Weinberg, Kjellander, O’Farrell & Ames, for appellee; Harold R. Kjellander, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph Wencpal, appellant, v. Salomi Wencpal, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,646.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Anthony A. Slakis and Theodore A. Spence, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    James Gleatis, trading as Central Billiards, Sporting Goods and Novelties, appellee, v. The Century Insurance Company Limited, of Edinburgh, Scotland, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,709.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 22, 1935.
    Hicks & Folonie, for appellant. Abner Goldenson, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Irving I. Cohen and Lena Sherman, plaintiffs in error, v. Barney B. Libman, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 37,257.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing, denied April 22, 1935.
    Abrams, Sherman & Lewis, for plaintiffs in error; Clyde C. Fisher, of counsel. No appearance for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Jacob H. Jaffe, appellee, v. Schluter and Company, Inc., appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,392.

      Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; Thomas I. Underwood and Douglas O. Moir, of counsel. Alfred M. Loeser and Jaffe & Green, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank R. Cummings and Mary F. Cummings, appellants, v. George W. Torpe, appellee.
    Gen. No. 37,402.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Packard, Barnes, MeCaughey & Schumacher, for appellants. Herman Smith, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Florence Horwitz, also known and described as Mrs. Hans Pakula, appellee, v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,445.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Bkern & Meyers, for appellant; Russell H. Matthias and Luther F. Binkley, of counsel. Soble, Spira & Langeluttig, for appellee; Hirsch E. Soble and Albert Langeluttig, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Clara Rogers, appellee, v. City of Chicago, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,460.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, and Alexander M. Smietanka, City Attorney, for appellant; Quin O’Brien and James Dana-her, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel. Frederick A. Gariepy and Owen Rail, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Elmer A. Triebull, appellee, v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,469.

      Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Hoyne, O’Connor' & Rubinkam, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Jasper A. Campbell, Jr., et al., appellants, v. I. S. Falk and. W. F. Hewitt, appellees.
    Gen. No. 37,499.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 22, 1935.
    Hopkins, Sutter, Halls & De Wolfe, for appellants; Olvany, Eisner & Donnelly, of counsel. Hirsch E. Soble and Albert Langeluttig, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Mike Sufa and Regina Sufa, appellees, v. Ladislaw Vacek and Marie Vacek, appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,510.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Grablowski & Kanak, for appellants. Heile, Cavender, Milchrist & Kaiser and Theodore J. Szmergalski, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    In re Estate of Frank Rayman, deceased. Charles Rayman, appellee, v. National Builders Bank of Chicago, administrator with the will annexed of estate of Frank Rayman, deceased, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,538.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 22, 1935.
    Clarence T. Morse, for appellant. Prank H. Repetto, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr, Justice Hall

text:
    William M. Davis, defendant in error, v. Frank P. Kretchmer et al., plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 37,569.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 22, 1935.
    Tarnopol & Flamm, for plaintiffs in error; John B. King, of counsel. Chapman & Cutler, for defendant in error; George H. Jirgal and Charles M. Thomson, of counsel.
   Mr, Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Adeline Frizzell, appellee, v. Maywood Temple Association, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,593.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Cassels, Potter & Bentley, for appellant; Ralph F. Potter, Leslie H. Vogel and E. Douglas Salivantes, of counsel. Guy C. Guerine, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Evelyn Krueger, appellee, v. City of Chicago, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,689.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing, denied April 22, 1935.
    William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, and Alexander M. Smietanka, City Attorney, for appellant; Robert E. Dowling and Thadeus Niemira, Assistant City Attorneys, of counsel. Lowenhaupt & Wolff and Charles C. Spencer, for appellee; Albert A. Gomberg and Richard M. Spencer, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Carrie A. Cross, appellee, v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,724.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. Bramhall & Novotny and Ürion, Bishop, Sladkey & Boutell, for appellee; Jerome J. Sladkey and Joseph F. Novotny, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr, Justice Wilson

text:
    Charles Schubert, appellee, v. The Peoples Trust and Savings Bank of Chicago, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,759.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Cooke, Sullivan & Ricks, for appellant; George J. O’Grady, of counsel. Bayley, Merrick, Webster & Gregory, for appellee; Robert S. Hunter and Newell C. Munson, of counsel.
   Mr, Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Edward H. Morris, receiver of Binga State Bank, appellee, v. John W. Barnes, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,770.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Rehearing denied April 22, 1935.
    Henry C. Ferguson, for appellant. James B. Cashin, for appellee; Thomas P. Harris, of "counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    In re Estate of Anna Miller, deceased, appellee, v. Appeal of William Lazarski, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,808.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Jacob Levy, for appellant; Edward M. Tiernan, of counsel. Collins & Sentz, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Helen S. Magnus, administratrix, etc., appellee, v. Katherine Swartz and Bernard J. Brown, defendants, on appeal of Bernard J. Brown, appellant.
    Gen. No. 37,826.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Bernard J. Brown, pro se. Joseph Granick, for appellee; Charles H. Pease, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Clark-Randolph Building Corporation, appellee, v. Mary Belle Spencer et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 37,856.
    Opinion filed April 10, 1935.
    Jay J. McCarthy and Mary Belle Spencer, for appellants. Irving S. Abrams and Harry S. Jacobs, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Dove

text:
    Second District.
    Lowell L. Jibben, by his next friend, Orie L. Jibben, appellee, v. Village of Bartonville, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,835.

      Opinion filed February 14, 1935.
    Rehearing denied March 18, 1935.
    Joe L. Johnson and George W. Hunt, for appellant. Richard H. Radley and John Radley, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Henry Boomgarden, as administrator of the estate of Augusta Boomgarden, deceased, appellant, v. Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,843.
    Opinion filed February 14, 1935.
    Kay & Nelson, for appellant; J. N. Moore, of counsel. Free P. Morris and Roseoe C. South, for appellee; K. L. Richmond, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Laura Gottsche, appellee, v. Carl J. Lager, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,852.
    Opinion filed February 14, 1935.
    Bartlett S. Gray, for appellant. Joseph L. Shaw and Geo. W. Wood, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William A. Atkinson, appellee, v. Julia P. Warren, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,858.
    Opinion filed February 14, 1935.
    C. H. Linseott, for appellant. Welsh & Welsh, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    A. Pusatere, appellant, v. H. D. Darnell, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,848.
    Opinion filed March 22, 1935.
    Charles E. Lauder and Frederick H. Lauder, for appellant. L. H. Hanna, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Exposition Park Jockey Club for use of Bentley-Murray Company, appellant, v. Harry A. Crawford, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,871.

      Opinion filed March 22, 1935.
    Payton J. Tuohy and Frank A. McCarthy, for appellant. Sears & Solfisburg, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The Prudential Insurance Company of America, defendant in error, v. Charles C. Hoge et al., plaintiffs in error. S. Roy Hoge et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America et al., defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 8,911.
    Opinion filed March 22, 1935.
    H. B. Smith, S. J. Holderman, Arley Munts, Harry C. Daniels and John H. Raymond, for plaintiffs in error. DeGoy B. Ellis, Paul M. Hamilton and Harold H. Jordan, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Huffman

text:
    Leah Pearsall, appellee, v. Harry T. Campbell, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,891.
    Opinion filed March 22, 1935.
    Rehearing denied May 11, 1935.
    R. Waite Joslyn, for appellant. Arthur L. Paulson, for appellee; Latham Castle, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Huffman

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lila Hill, appellee, v. George Martin, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,896.
    Opinion filed March 22, 1935.
    J. A. Miller, for appellant; Henry D. Fisher, of counsel. Bangs, Crane & Slater and Kurt Kiesow, for appellee; Drennan J. Slater, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Huffman

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William C. De Wolf, appellee, v. Wm. Bowley et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 8,906.
    Opinion filed March 22, 1935.
    Alexander J. Strom, State’s Attorney, for appellants. Roy F. Hall, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Huffman

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    City of Wheaton, appellee, v. Edward Howard, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,913.
    Opinion filed March 22, 1935.
    A. R. Moyle, for appellant; Edwin S. Wertz, of counsel. Carlton L. Fischer, for appellee; George William Pierce, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Huffman

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Stone

text:
    Fourth District.
    Rosetta Hungate, appellee, v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, New York City, New York, appellant.
    Opinion filed March 4, 1935.
    Rehearing denied May 28, 1935.
    Samuel Levin and Layman & Johnson, for appellant. Carl Clioisser and S. M. Ward, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Christopher Building and Loan Association, appellee, v. Sheldon R. Gilbert and Eunice R. Gilbert, appellants.
    Opinion filed March 4, 1935.
    D. F. Moore, for appellants. H. E. Morgan, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Lacey, J.

text:
    F. M. Chapman v. The Drainage Commissioners of District No. 3.

      Drainage — Construction of Statute — Certiorari—Petition for Writ— Laches — Classification—Informality—Estoppel—Practice.

      ■ 1. The failure of the commissioners to classify lands which should be classified at zero because not benefited by a proposed ditch, is an informality which will not sustain a petition for a writ of certiorari to have the proceedings for the organization of a drainage district quashed.
    2. The drainage acts are liberally construed to promote the object in view.
    3. The writ of certiorari is not a writ of right. Its .allowance is within the sound discretion of the court and oral evidence may be heard as to whether it should be allowed.
    4. Under the circumstances of the case presented the action of the petitioner in suing out the writ was too long delayed.
    5. A question touching the failure of the record to show notice prior to the confirmation of the classification in question, can not be first raised in this court, especially as the record appears to have been made up by agreement.
    [Opinion filed May 28, 1888.]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Iroquois County; the Hon. Alfred Sample, Judge, presiding.
    This was certiorari commenced in the Circuit Court on the petition of appellant filed March 17, 18S7, and the writ was dated March 24, 1887, and return of service April 2, 1887. The petition for the writ recites the original petition for the formation of the drainage district under drainage act of July I, 1885, giving a copy of the petition with the names of the signers, one of whom is the appellant, the petition being filed with the town plerk October 14, 1885, the order organizing the district, November 27, 1885, which order added certain lands to the district not prayed for in the original petition, and permitted additional signatures; certificate of drainage commissioners November 17, 1886, and an order that the amount of $4,000 be raised by special assessment upon the lands of the district, as the same may be necessary, apportioning the amount among the several tracts, etc.; the town clerk’s certificate and order of the commissioners of the graduated scale of classification (which is copied) signed by commissioners October 15,1886; also amendatory classification as to several tracts of lands on the objection of certain parties, dated November 3, 1886; and a special assessment list made by the commissioners which is copied and dated and filed with the town clerk November 17,1886.
    The appellant then averred in his petition that he was the owner of all the lands mentioned in'the special assessment list marked in the name of F. M. Chapman, and was interested in having said special assessment legally made and in having all the lands in said drainage district classified, and when found to be benefited, assessed their just and equal portion, and the petition showed that by the record aforesaid the whole of sections 19 in range 11, east 3 P. M.,and 19 in 14, west 2 P. M. were omitted from the classification and assessment, and the N. E. J, S. W. of section 23, R. 14, is included in the classification although lying without the district, and that N. E. S. E. section 23 is not included in the classification though wholly lying within the district; avers that such omission of such lands from the classification was illegal and without the jurisdiction of the commissioners and resulted in great damage, to the petitioner, etc., and prays that the defendants may certify into court a full, true and perfect transcript of all the records, papers, documents, etc., and files connected with the district, etc., and the court may inspect the record and proceedings and quash the same.
    The commissioners answer the petition and adopt the papers and files set out in the petition, and add other portions of the record.
    Order of the commissioners dated August 25, 1886, that on account of the jury assessing the right of way too high, etc., they abandoned the work as laid out (reciting the work abandoned) and ordering R McDougall, a surveyor of said county, to make a survey and report.
    Then map of survey by McDougall in lieu of the first work August 28, 1886, filed with clerk September 7, 1886, ordered new survey by Stanford and shows his report, gives map showing drainage across section 23 according to Stanford’s report. Row route adopted. The commissioners further answer that on account of the change in the route of the ditch said sections 19 and 19 would not be at all benefited and if said sections had been classified it would have been at zero, and no tax assessed against the same.
    The answer further shows that a great proportion of the assessment on lands in said district have been paid and contract let for the work, and a great amount of money collected and paid out, so the parties can not be placed in statu quo, which answer was signed by the clerk and commissioners and filed in court June 2,1887. May 31,1887, appellant moved to quash a part of the return made by appellees, which motion was overruled. The cause was then heard, and the testimony of witnesses was heard in open court, and the petition was dismissed and certiorari quashed.
    The cause was heard upon the petition, answer of defendants and the testimony, it being agreed between the petitioner and defendants that wherein the proceedings of the commissioners are purported ‘to be set out by the petitioner in his petition they were correct, and that so far as defendants’ answer purported to set out the proceedings of the commissioners the same were correct. The oral evidence showed that the commissioners talked the matter over in regard to the two sections 19, and came to the conclusion that after the change of the plan in the ditching, they would not be benefited; and if they ' had been classified, they would have been classified at zero. The commissioners did not know what to do, so they concluded to let it drop and not classify these lands. They did not think they had a right to change the district at. that time. The petitioner was one of the prime movers to vacate the work, and adopt the plan now on file. He said he would give up his ditches, right of way, all his rights in the ditches. The ditches did not come within three-fourths of a mile of sections 19.
    Messrs. Kay & Evans, for appellant.
    Messrs. Habéis & Hoofeb, for appellees.
   Lacey, J.

The only complaint in the petition was as to the failure of the commissioners to classify the two sections 19 and one other tract, and for classifying one tract not in the district. The only complaint made here in appellant’s brief, is the failure to classify said two sections. The complaint as to the other tracts appears for some reason to be abandoned.

It pretty clearly appears from the evidence that on account of the change of the route of the ditch after the two sections had been taken into the district they would not be at all benefited by the drainage. The appellant was a promoter and adviser of the change made by the commissioners. According- to the statute the two sections should have been classified, though if not benefited it might have been at zero. If they had been classified at zero no tax could have been assessed against them and the appellant could not have been benefited by any supposed reduction of his own tax by reason of the tivo sections having been classified. It is a mere technical complaint having no merit.

Sec. 15 of the Drainage Act of 1885 (see Session L.’1885, p. 82) provides that a petitioner shall be conclusively presumed to accept the provisions of the act as to assessments, benefits and damages.” He is estopped from complaining in this proceeding that his assessment is not just and from seeking to quash the proceedings for that reason.

The Drainage Act, Sec. 78, provides “ that the acts and proceedings done and the rights acquired (under this act), if in substantial compliance to law, shall not be held to be void from merely technical informality of proceedings, where no substantial rights of persons or property are adversely affected.”

It will be seen from what we have said that “ no substantial right of appellant was adversely affected.” He was not injured by the failure to classify the sections in question to the extent of a dollar. The same section also provides that the Drainage Act shall be liberally construed to effect the object designed by the legislature. See opinion of this court in Lees v. Drainage Commissioners, 24 Ill. App. 487, affirmed in the Supreme Court by opinion filed at Ottawa May 9,1887.

The writ of certiorari is not a writ of right. It is within the sound discretion of the court whether it will be allowed or not, and oral evidence may be heard to enlighten the court’s conscience on that point. Ilyslop et al. v. Finch, 99 Ill. 171.

The record shows that appellant delayed his action in suing out his writ from Bov ember 17, 1886, when the assessment was made, to March 17, 1887. The evidence shows that a greater proportion of the assessment on lands in the district had been paid and contract let for the work, and a great amount of money collected and paid out. But as the assessments were due before the writ was sued out the presumption would be that it was paid. Many other parties are deeply interested in this record and it would, no doubt, be a great damage to many to have the record quashed.

We think the court should not have exercised its discretion in allowing the writ, which it afterward quashed and cured the error. The appellant should have taken immediate steps. He waited too long. Board of Supervisors v. McCoon, 109 Ill. 142.

What has been said sufficiently disposes of all the points raised by appiellant. One other question is raised in regard to the record failing to show notice prior to the confirmation of the classification under Sec. 28 of the act. This point, so far as we can see, was not made in the courtbelow, being made here for the first time. It appears also that the record was made up by agreement.

It was agreed “ that wherein the proceedings of the commissioners are purported to be set out by the petitioner in his petition they were correct, and that so far as the defendant’s answer purported to set out the proceedings of the commissioners, the same were correct.”

The case was then tried on the proceedings as set out in the petition and answer. It did not purport to contain all the proceedings and papers and only so much of the record as was necessary to raise the question of the omission to classify the two sections was brought to the attention of the court. No point of -want of notice was suggested or claimed in the petition and no record was thought necessary to be produced in the answer to show notice.

It would be talcing an unfair advantage of the appellees to allow that question to be raised for the first time in this court.

Besides this, we think this petition was made too late.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


text:
    William Parker v. Amanda Parker.

      Divorce — Desertion—Collusion—Division of Property — Contract.
    A contract between husband and wife, dividing their property, in consideration of her refusal to live with him longer, entered into after he had made every reasonable effort to induce her to return to him, does not show collusion on his part for her to live separate and apart from him.
    [Opinion filed May 28, 1888.]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Winnebago County; the Hon. O. H. Horton, Judge, presiding.

      Mr. H. C. Warner, for appellant.
    Ho appearance for appellee.
   Lacey, J.

This was a bill originally filed by appellee for separate maintenance, and afterward, cross-bill by appellant for divorce on the ground of desertion.

The appellee failed to answer the cross-bill and default was entered against her. Upon hearing, the court dismissed the original and cross-bill for want of equity, from which decree this appeal is taken.

The refusal of the court to grant appellant a decree of divorce is assigned for error. The appellant was a man seventy-eight years of age and had been married previously and divorced; the appellee was some fifty-one years of age and had also been previously married and had been divorced, but had borne her first husband four children. The parties herein were married in August, 1882. They lived together peaceably until the 9th of July, 1885, when appellee, being somewhat ailing and subject to bad spells, left the appellant’s house and went to her daughter’s. The arrangement was that if she did not return appellant was to go after her; she did not return and appellant went for her according to arrangement. He did not wish her to stay but she refused to go home. He went after her several times after that and tried to get her to go home without avail. He came six or eight times — came every day,” says appellee’s daughter. The appellee would not give her husband any answer whether she would go back home and live with him or not. In the meantime he had been staying alone at home. On the 15th July, 1885, she and Jessie, her daughter, came up to his place. lie tried to get her to come back but she would not, and insisted on having á settlement of the property to fix it up. Appellant asked her what she wanted. lie wanted her to be content to stay with him but she would not, so he finally told her that he would give her $25 and the household furniture. She wanted him to relinquish his claim on her property and she would on his. So the division of the property was made on this basis. Each of them owned real estate worth from eight to twelve hundred. He could not say that he knew the cause of his wife leaving him. He thought her children were jealous for fear he would spend his wife’s property' and they would get none of it. He always treated his wife kindly and she did him to his face. He always provided for his family and when she wanted anything she had the money in her pocket to pay for it. The agreement was reduced to writing, and declared it was entered into in consideration that she had refused to live with him longer and had left him, and in consideration that she would not tax his credit, while they lived apart, for her support, lie gave her the $25 and the furniture.

The appellant gave in his testimony in open court and the court cross-examined him, and asked him whether at the time the paper was made there was any understanding between them that they were to live separate, and the appellant answered that as he understood it they were to live separate. The court asked: “And this was an agreement and settlement of property to live separate after that?” Appellant answered: “Well, I was ready to live with her at any time.” The court: “ Was not that the intention of the agreement between you?” Answer: “I think it was the understanding that we were not to live together any more.” And the court continued: “ That being a final settlement of your affairs?” Answer: “I suppose so, unless she' took a notion to come hack.”

Hpon this state of facts it appeared that the court held there was collusion and a mutual agreement between the appellant and appellee to live separate and apart. Hence there could be no desertion as claimed in the bill. We are inclined to take a different view of the evidence. The appellant in all his evidence appears to be frank and truthful and is corroborated iby all the other evidence in his statement of the facts, even by .appellee’s own daughter. It appears that he made every .reasonable effort to induce his wife to return and she refused and would not give him any answer whether she would ever come back. No doubt she was politic in this as she wanted to get an advantageous compromise. A division of the property was what she wanted. He, no doulh, felt that there was no hope of her ever returning and we think the preponderance of the evidence justified him in so thinking. There is no evidence going to show that he desired a separation but simply yielded to the necessities of the case, and to save himself greater loss, as he thought, made the required division of the property. It seems to us he has tried throughout to do what was right and just by the appellee. She has never made any complaints, so far as the evidence shows, of his treatment of her. We think there was no collusion on his part for her to live separate and apart from him. It was a matter of necessity on his part. As he says he has always held himself in readiness to live with her but she still lives apart from him. We must hold, under the circumstances, that the appellant has made out a case of desertion by, at least, a preponderance of the evidence, and that he is entitled to a divorce under the statute. This is a case that rests mostly on the evidence and its peculiar facts, but we find support for the view we have taken in a case decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, which in its facts is quite similar to the facts in this case, and where it was held that the charge of desertion was made out. See Staffer v. Staffer, 50 Mich. 491-2. The decree of the court below is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to the court below to grant a decree of divorce as is prayed for in appellant’s cross-bill.

Reversed and remanded..


text:
    Thomas M. Kelly v. Louis Dandurand.

      Action on Account — Evidence — Weight of — Instructions — Excessive Judgment.

    1. Where the verdict of the jury is based upon the evidence of the two parties to a suit alone, this court will not interfere.

      2. A contract foreign to the issue is not admissible in evidence, although it is alleged'to be the same as the one in question.
    3. It is proper to refuse an instruction which is argumenta!ive, which invades the province of the jury, or calls attention to particular evidence.
    4. This court will not reverse a judgment because it is slightly in excess of an account filed, especially on objection here first raised.
    [Opinion filed May 28, 1888.]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee County; the lion. Alfred Sample, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. Stephen R. Moore, for appellant.
    Messrs. Richardson Brothers, for appellee.
   Lacey, J.

This was a suit on an account for hauling saw logs, brought by appellee against appellant before a justice of the peace, and by appeal went to the Circuit Court. The suit was tried there before a jury and verdict for appellee for $96.91, and judgment on verdict. It appears from appellee’s evidence that his claim originated as follows:

Appellant being the owner of some walnut timber standing in the tree on his farm, sold thirty-six trees to one Wentzelman for $100 cash, when they commenced chopping the trees, and $420 to be paid in four weeks. In March following, Wentzelman hired appellee to haul the logs at $9 per thousand from Kelly’s to Mr. Beckwith’s. Under this contract the appellee commenced hauling the logs, and had two hauled when appellant, not being willing to trust Wentzehnan for tlio pay, wanted the logs hauled in his name, and the lumber to be his until he was paid, and appellant became paymaster to appellee for the hauling. That the amount hauled was 10,763, at $9 per thousand. The lumber was to he measured in the log. This evidence the appellant in his testimony entirely contradicts, and testifies that he never agreed to pay appellee for the hauling, and, in fact, he was not to pay him. Also produces evidence tending to show that after the logs were sawed the hoards produced only measured 3,670 feet. We do not think that the weight of the evidence is so manifestly against the verdict of the jury that the judgment should be reversed for that reason. As to the contract, it was the oath of the one against the other, and the jury having found for the appellee, we are not at liberty to disturb the verdict. As to the amount of the lumber, the evidence is less satisfactory, yet we are inclined to think that the evidence on that point will sustain the verdict. The contract was, as appellee testified, that the lumber was to be measured in the log. It is possible that the appellee might have made a mistake in his measurement, and the men he had hauling the logs for him might have reported the wrong logs to him. As to appellant’s measurement, there might have been some loss in sawing, causing a discrepancy between the log measurement and the board measurement, and there might have heen a mistake by Wentzclman in keeping the right lumber separate and getting the right report as to what logs belonged to appellant. These were matters the jury had a right to consider and decide, and we are unable to say it did not decide correctly.

Complaint is also made that the court erred in excluding the written contract for the sale of logs between L. Brosseau and Wentzclman. It appears that appellee testified on cross-examination that the logs he hauled for Kelly he hauled under the same kind of agreement that he hauled for Brosseau under his agreement with Wentzclman, which showed that Wentzclman was to become paymaster and not Brosseau. We think the evidence was properly excluded. The contract had nothing to do with the issue. It rvas between other parties with which appellant had nothing to do. ¡Neither was appellee a party to it. His contract to haul the Brosseau logs was verbal, although the contract between Brosseau and Wcntzelman was in writing and might have ‘been the same that he claimed to have with appellant. ¡Nor was it proper by way of impeachment of appellee as a witness.

To admit such evidence would raise an issue foreign to the one being tried, that would need to be as much tried as the one under investigation. The contract did not show what the agreement of appellee with Brosseau was. There was no error in refusing the appellant’s first, second and third instmctions. The first raised a false issue. The appellee could rely on the whole evidence and was not confined to that given in by himself; and the instruction took the case from the jury. The second and third refused instructions were improper because they were argumentative and invaded the province of the jury, and called attention to particular evidence and sought to discriminate against the evidence of admissions. Such instructions have often been condemned by this court and the Supreme Court. It is insisted that the verdict and judgment is for 91 cents too much; that much in excess of the account filed. While this may be so we are of opinion that it is for too small an amount to reverse. The law will not notice trifles. It seems to have been discovered for the first time in this court and was not assigned as cause for new trial in the motion for a new trial in the court below. Had the attention of the court below been called to it, no doubt the matter would have been corrected there. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


text:
    William Seeger v. Frederick Mueller et al.

      Highways — Bill to Enjoin Obstruction of Alleged Highway — Want of Equity.

    1. Equity will not do lhat which will be of no benefit to Ihe parly asking it, but only a hardship to the party coerced.
    2. This court affirms a decree dismissing a bill to enjoin the obstruction of a strip of ground which had been designated as a road on a plat of school lands, and subsequently condemned as impassable by the commissioners of ■ highways, it appearing that the complainant has no design to improve or use the road, but is actuated by spite and malice.
    [Opinion filed May 28, 1888.]

      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jo Daviess County; the Hon. William Brown, Judge, presiding.
    The appellant filed his bill in equity in the court below? seeking to enjoin the appellees from obstructing twenty feet in width south and east of section 16, T. 28, B. 1, west 4 P. M., in Jo Daviess county, and from interfering with him,his agents, etc., from using and improving said strip, or removing obstructions therefrom so that it may be safe to travel, or from in any manner interfering with the free enjoyment of said road as may be for public or private use. That the appellees may be required to abate the nuisance of fences and obstructions placed by them on said road, etc.
    It appears that the above section was school lands, and that the trustees of schools subdivided it into lots- by a plat on which the roads are designated by double lines on which are written the words, “ roads twenty feet wide.” The appellant was the owner of three of the lots. The section was subdivided and platted in accordance with the provision of the laws of 1849, Sec. 17, which provides as follows: “ That the trustees of schools shall divide the land into tracts or lots of such form and quantity as will produce the largest amount of money, and after making such division a correct plat of the same shall be made representing all the divisions, with each lot numbered and defined so that its boundaries may be forever ascertained, which plat, etc., shall be delivered to the school commissioner, and shall govern him in advertising and selling said lands.”
    Sec. 18. “ In subdividing common school lands for sale, no lot shall contain more than eighty acres, and the division may be made into town and village lots, with roads, streets or alleys between them and through the same, and all such divisions, with all similar divisions hereafter made, are hereby declared legal, and all such roads, streets and alleys public highways.”
    The sale and subdivision of the school lands in question was made in 1856, and, we think, regular. The appellees also owned several of the lots in said section on which such road, twenty feet wide around the whole tract, had been laid out, deriving their title, through the patentee, from the State. The road laid out was twenty feet wide around the entire section.
    The patent conveyed the entire land, including the portion covered by the road, in accordance, however, with the plat of the trustees. The 16th section in question falls upon a rough tract of country, and is located among the hills and bluffs near the confluence of the Mississippi and Sinsinnewa rivers, and the portion where the road in question is located is exceedingly hilly and steep and full of deep, wide gullies, so that, without immense expense, out of all proportion to the benefits to be derived by complainant from any use of the road, the road could not be put in condition to travel.
    Mr. E. L. Bedeoed, for appellant.
    Messrs. D. & T. J. Sheeah & McHugh, for appellees.
   Lacey, J.

It is contended by appellees that the act in question authorizing the trustees to lay out school lands with roads, streets and alleys between the divisions applies only to streets and alleys where the land is laid out into town lots; that hence it is argued by them that the road was laid out without authority, the land not having been divided into town lots.

It appears from the evidence that the supposed road in dispute has never been traveled or worked by the public as a road since it was platted and since the land was purchased over twenty years ago. That portions of the supposed road have been fenced for over twenty years. The public authorities have refused to expend any money on the road on account of the impracticability of ever using it as a road, and had told appellee to fence it up. It appears also that appellant has now, and has had for many years, an outlet and road from his lots to the main public highway, and that even if the road were left open it could not be used without the expenditure of large sums of money on account of its narrowness and steepness and its being crossed by deep ravines and gullies, and the evidence fully justifies us in believing that the appellant has no intention of using or improving the alleged road.

In 1S78, the commissioners of highways of West Galena township, by a majority, condemned said strip and found it impassable; “that it would cost §500 to open it and would have no road then.”

One of the commissioners of highways, Patrick Dillon, testified that he had viewed the strip as a commissioner and condemned it. “We found it rough and impassable ;” and saj-s, “I should judge it would cost between §8,000 and §10,000 to put that strip of ground in passable condition for teams with loads.” “ Opening the road wouldn’t benefit anybody.”

Waiving the question of what is the proper interpretation of the statute in question in regard to the right of the trustees of schools to lay out the road in the manner they did, we are clearly of the opinion that the appellant failed to show any equity in his hill or to show any facts which would authorize a court of chancery to interfere.

The appellant seems from the evidence to be actuated by “spite” and malice toward the appellees in seeking to compel them to open the road in question and in seeking to restrain them from again fencing it in with the balance of then-land as they had done before appellant tore it down. It does not a¡)pear that the appellant has the remotest design to improve or use the road, but that his only aim is to annoy appellees.

The appellees at least own the land occupied by the twenty-feet strip subject to the easement, if there be one, and the appellant and the public being unable to use it for the purposes of a highway, equity will not restrain the appellees from making use of it, or compel them to remove their fences from the strip in question.

“ Courts of equity are not bound at all times to enforce a strict legal right.” Lewis v. Lyons, 13 Ill. 117; Stone v. Pratt, 25 Ill. 25. “Equity will not do that which will he of no benefit to the party asking it and only a hardship on the party coerced.” Joliet, etc., R. R. Co. v. Healey, 94 Ill. 416; Green v. Green, 31 Ill. 327; Werden v. Graham, 107 Ill. 169.

The above rule of law meets with our full approval and we feel that its application is most appropriate in this case. The decree of dismissal of the hill by the court below is affirmed.

Decree affirmed.


author: Baker, J,

text:
    E. H. Ricker v. D. C. Scofield.

      Promissory Note — Attorney’s Fees — Costs—Pleading and Practice— Pleas in Abatement — Usury.
    1. The matter of allowing new and independent pleas, presenting new defenses, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere, unless it appears that such discretion has been abused.
    2. After a plea 'in bar to an action, the defendant can not plead in abatement, unless for new matter arising after the commencement of the suit.
    8. Pleas in abatement must be verified by affidavit.
    4. An agreement for the payment of attorney's fees will not make usurious an otherwise valid contract or obligation, and it makes no difference whether the same was to be a certain sum, a reasonable sum, or a sum fixed at a certain percentage of the amount of either the debt or judgment.
    [Opinion filed May 28, 1888.]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County; the Hon. Isaac G. Wilson, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. R. M. Ireland, for appellant.
    The errors assigned on this record all look to the statute of amendments and the practices thereunder. It has been held that under our present statute leave to amend pleadings so as to present an issue to the court on the merits of a case is no longer discretionary with the court, but is a legal right. The Empire Fire Insurance Co. v. The Real Estate Trust Co., 1 Ill. App. 391; Drake v. Drake, 83 Ill. 526.
    In regard to the assignment of error based on the court’s refusing to allow the filing of the plea of usury, showing that ten per cent, was to be added to the face of the note if not paid when due, we simply wish to submit that if this agreement, when made, instead of being intended as a penalty for non-payment of the note when due, was intended as a device to evade the statute on usury, as is sometimes the case, and as the proof here might have shown, then the contract was usurious, and the plea should have been filed; for no trick, shift or device will be allowed in evasion of the statute. Ferguson v. Sutphen, 3 Gilm. 546; Shirley v. Welty, 19 Ill. 623; Sutphen v. Cushman, 35 Ill. 186.
    Hr. J. W. Barstead, for appellee.
   Baker, J,

Bicker was sued in assumpsit by Scofield to the February term, 1887, of the Kane Circuit Court, upon a promissory note for §530, dated March 15, 1SS0, due two years after date, and drawing eight per cent, interest per annum. The note contained a provision that in case a default was made in payment, then, “ a sum equal to ten per cent, of the whole of said amount shall be added thereto for attorney’s fees and taxed as a part of the costs in the court where suit may be brought.”

At the return term, the general issue was filed, and issue joined thereon. At the same term, a special plea was interposed, and a demurrer to it was sustained bjr the court, and leave was taken to amend the plea, and the cause was continued with leave to file additional pleas.

The April term, 1887, of the court commenced on the ISth day of April. At that time the special plea had not been amended, and no additional pleas had been filed. The general order of the court was, that all pleas in civil cases be filed by the opening of court on April 21st, but on special application of appellant he was granted an extenúen of time until April 25th in which to file his amended and additional pleas, and on the day last mentioned he filed four special pleas. Appellee, on the same day, filed a demurrer .to said four pleas. It appears from the record that this demurrer was submitted to the court on the 29th day of April, and that on the 2d day of May the court sustained the demurrer to each and all of said pleas. Thereupon appellant made •seriatim, three several motions, each of which was refused by the court, and an exception taken. The first motion was for leave to plead over. The second motion was for leave to withdraw the general issue and file as pleas in abatement the first and fourth of the pleas filed April 25, 1887. The third motion was for leave to file an additional plea for usury, which was presented to the court.

At the time the court sustained the demurrer to the four pleas, and at the time the three aforesaid motions were made by appellant, the court was engaged upon the call of the common law docket for trial, with a jury, and the case at bar was the next case on the call; the plaintiff was in court ready for trial, and the case was immediately thereafter called for trial, and tried in its regular order on the docket. The verdict of the jury and judgment of the court were for appellee and against appellant for §805.85, the amount of principal and interest due on the note after making deduction for a credit of §50, indorsed on the note as of September 30,1885.

Mo claim is made by appellant that there was any error in the rulings of the court in sustaining a demurrer to the special plea filed'at the February term, and in sustaining demurrers to the four pleas filed at the April term. The assignments of error upon the record are three.

1. That the court, having sustained a demurrer to defendant’s pleas filed April 25, 1887, erred in refusing defendant leave to plead over.

2. That the court erred in refusing leave to defendant to withdraw the plea of general issue, and to file as pleas in abatement the first and fourth of the pleas filed April 25, 1887.'

3. 'That the court erred in refusing to allow the defendant leave to file his plea of usury.

1. There was no error in the action of the court in refusing to give to appellant a general permission “to plead over.” The matter of allowing new and independent pleas, presenting new defenses to the action to be filed, is addressed to the judicial discretion of the trial court, and appellate courts will not interfere with the exercise of such discretionary power without it is plain there has been an abuse of such discretion. Under the circumstances of this case there was no abuse of discretion. The result óf granting the leave asked would likely have" been to continue the case. Had the court permitted that which appellant sought to obtain, it would seem, just cause of complaint would probably have been given to appellee. Both the statute and the courts are hberal in allowing amendments, either of form or substance, in any pleading in a case which will enable a defendant to make a legal defense. But here, no leave was asked to make an amendment; it was not proposed to amend the pleas or any of the pleas on file, or to obviate the objections in any of them, on account of which the demurrers had been sustained by the court. Whatever may have been appellant’s statutory rights to amend his pleas, it is.sufficient to sa.y he did not seek to avail himself of them.

2. It is elementary that after a plea in bar to the action the defendant can not plead in abatement, unless for new matter arising after the commencement of the suit. 1 Chit. Pl., 441; Lindsay v. Stout, 59 Ill. 491; Thomas v. Lowy, 60 Ill. 512; Hawkins v. Albright, 70 Ill. 87. By filing the general issue and other pleas in bar appellant waived his right to plead in abatement. Archibald v. Argall, 53 Ill. 307, is almost or quite on all fours with the case in hand, not, only in respect to the legal principle under discussion, but also in respect to the subject-matter of the proposed pleas in abatement. In Drake v. Drake, 83 Ill. 526, cited by appellant, no plea in bar had been pleaded, and it was merely held that under the present statute a plea in abatement of the character there involved was amendable. Another cogent reason to justify the court in denying to appellant the privilege of filing the proposed pleas as pleas in abatement, was that neither" of them was verified by an affidavit, and no offer was made to so verify them.

8. The additional plea of usury presented to the court and asked to be filed was not a good and issuable plea. It purported in its commencement to answer the whole cause of action, and in fact only answered as to the interest on the note. The supposed usurious contract alleged therein was not in any respect the same usury that was claimed and attempted to be set up in the two prior pleas of usury that had been pleaded by appellant; and besides, such contract was .well known to him when he filed his former pleas, and if he thought it was usurious he should have interposed such defense sooner, and no.t when the case was on the eve of being called for trial. The court was fully authorized to doubt, under the circumstances, if the plea was offered in good faith. Besides this, the plea was witl out merit, and presented no defense to any part of appellee’s demand. The substance of the plea was that when the note was given it was agreed that eight per cent, interest should be paid, and that if the note was not paid at maturity a sum equal to ten per cent, should be added to the whole amount, to be taxed as costs, and that said eight per cent, interest and ten per cent, added to be taxed as costs exceed the legal rate of interest. The presumption from the plea and the language used therein must be that the ten per cent, claimed to be usury is the attorney’s fees, of ten per cent, on the amount of the note that the note itself provides shall “be taxed as a part of the costs in the court where suit may be brought.” It will be noted, the stipulation is not to pay appellee the ten per cent, in case of default, but-merely that in case default is made in payment and suit is brought and judgment recovered, then a fee of ten per cent, on the amount is to be taxed as a part of the costs in the court for the benefit of the attorney prosecuting the suit to judgment, as a compensation for his services in that behalf. Contracts by the makers of notes to $ay stipulated attorney fees in the event suits become necessary for the collection of such notes, are legal and valid contracts, and have been sustained and enforced by the courts in numerous cases. It is immaterial in that regard whether a stated sum is agreed upon as the fee, or the provision is for a reasonable fee, or the fee is fixed at a certain per cent, upon the amount of either the debt or the judgment. It has not been the understanding of either the courts or the profession that such agreements for the payment of attorney fees would make usurious an otherwise valid contract or notes. Dunn v. Rogers, 43 Ill. 260, 263. We think that attorney fees thus provided for in a note can not justly be regarded as “ interest,” “ discoimt, ” or “ compensation ” received or contracted for by the payee, in such sense as to render the principal contract usurious under section six of the interest act in force July 1, 1879.

Our conclusion is, that there was no error in overruling the several motions of appellant. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


text:
    John Farrell v. Amelia Farrell.

      Husband and Wife — Separate Maintenance — Extent of Allowance — Evidence — Threats—Receipt of Compromising Letters.

    Upon a bill for separate maintenance it is held: That the evidence sustains the decree; and that an allowance of $20 per month is not excessive, the husband being worth from $15,000 to $20,000.
    [Opinion filed May 28, 1888.]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County; the lion. T. M. Shaw, Judge, presiding.
    Messrs. Kellogg & Cameron, for appellant.
    Messrs. Puterbahgh & Puterbaugh, for app>ellee.
   Lacey, J.

This was a bill for separate maintenance instituted by appellee against the appellant. Upon answer the case was referred to the master to take the testimony and report his conclusions thereon. The master reported the evidence, and found the equities in favor of appellee, and that she was 'entitled to a decree of separate maintenance, and that appellant should be compelled to pay appellee a separate support of §20 per month, commencing October 1, 1886. Exceptions were filed to the master’s report by both parties; on the part of appellee because the allowance was inadequate, and by the appellant because the finding of the master was against the weight of the evidence and excessive. The court upon hearing overruled the exceptions of both parties and confirmed the master’s report, and decreed that appellant pay his wife the sum of §240 per year, commencing October 1, 1886, in quarterly installments in sums of §60 each, and made the decree a lien on defendant’s real estate. From the decree this appeal was taken. We do not think the amount is excessive, as the evidence shows that the appellant was possessed of and owned property to the value of from §15,000 to §20,000, mostly in productive property.

The only remaining question is whether the evidence justified the court in finding there were grounds for the decree of separate maintenance. After a full and careful reading of the evidence we are satisfied that there were sufficient grounds on which to base the decree.

It seems that the appellant became jealous of his wife on account of some letters of a compromising nature that shehad received from other men. But the evidence fails to show that she ever responded to the letters, or ever had any improper relations with those men or any other. The letters, at the very worst, are only sufficient to raise a suspicion of wrongdoing against her, but are not proof of anything. Any person may write another a letter, and the person to whom it is sent can not prevent it. If such evidence should be held sufficient to blast one’s character and establish guilt, no one would be safe. It seems further, from the evidence, the appellant had no just cause of complaint against his wife since their marriage, and his cruel treatment of her was not justified. The threat to shoot her was most unmanly and unjustifiable. A yroman would be unsafe to live with a man who made such threats. Besides this, he terrified her by beeping a loaded revolver in his pants pocket, in the room where they slept. It will not do for appellant to claim that he made the threats in fun.” How was appellee to know that they were so made? When a husband makes such threats against his wife she has a right to regard them as made in earnest, and he can not complain that she does. His conduct was such that she fled from him in great terror, and we think not without just cause.

Seeing no error, the decree of the court below is affirmed.

. Decree affirmed.