author: Mr. Justice Jett

text:
    City Trust & Savings Bank of Kankakee, Illinois, Trustee, Plaintiff in Error, v. Solon D. Knight et al., Defendants in Error.
    Gen. No. 7,823.

      Opinion filed July 30, 1928.
    H. H. Wheeler, for plaintiff in error.
    W. H. Dyer and C. B. Sawyer, for defendants in error, Solon D. Knight et al.
    John H. Beckers, for defendants in error, Camden Knight et al. .
   Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error sued out by the City Trust & Savings Bank of Kankakee, Illinois, trustee, plaintiff in error, to review an order of distribution entered by the circuit court of Kankakee county in the matter of a final report of plaintiff in error as trustee, under the last will and testament of Helen L. Huling.

Helen L. Huling died June 2, 1904, leaving a last will and testament. The second clause of her said will reads as follows: “I do give and bequeath to my nephew Harry Lee Knight, son of my late brother, Camden Knight, the use and income of forty thousand dollars ($40,000); that is say, that out of my estate, there shall be taken and held by Harry L. Crawford and H. M. Stone, now residents of the City of Kankakee, State of Illinois, jointly, the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in lawful money of ' the United States, as trustees and in trust for the use and benefit of said Harry Lee Knight, for and during his lifetime, and to so manage and invest the sum as to realize therefrom a sure and good income as practicable, and to render an account of, and pay to said Harry Lee Knight during his lifetime such income as the same shall be received by said trustees; and that at the death of said Harry Lee Knight the principal sum of said forty thousand dollars ($40,000) shall belong and be paid to Gertrude L. Knight, Carolyn Knight and Camden Knight, the daughters and son respectively of said Harry Lee Knight, to each one-third (1/3) thereof, provided that in case of the death of one of said trustees, or that one of said trustees shall become incapacitated or unable, from any cause, to perform the duties of said trust, then the survivor, or the other trustees, shall be authorized to act as sole trustee of said trust.” In November, 1904, a bill was filed in the circuit court of Kankakee county, praying for a construction of each and every clause of the will of the said Helen L. Huling. After a hearing on said bill, decree was entered from which an appeal was prosecuted to the Supreme Court. An opinion was filed by that court and is reported in Crawford v. Mound Grove Cemetery Ass’n, 218 Ill. 399.

By reason of the construction given the will by the Supreme Court, the above-mentioned trust fund of $40,000 was augmented by payments made by the executors into the trust, so that the aggregate of the trust fund became $52,350. Thereafter, at the January term, 1906, of the circuit court of Kankakee county, and in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, a final decree was entered in said cause. Said decree among other things provided for the payment of the trust fund of $40,000, out of the funds of said estate, said trust fund to be held by the trustees, during the lifetime of Harry Lee Knight for his use, and at his death the said sum of $40,000 was to be paid to Gertrude L, Knight, Carolyn L. Knight and Camden Knight, to each a one-third part thereof, and that the proportionate share of the residuum of said estate assignable to said trust fund of $40,000 under the twelfth clause of said will, was to be added to said $40,000 and to become a part thereof, and to be by said trustees handled as a part of said trust fund. From the date of their appointment as executors of the estate of Helen L. Huling, deceased, H. M. Stone and Harry L. Crawford were the sole executors of said estate until it was closed in 1914. When the said H. M. Stone and Harry L. Crawford qualified as trustees under the said will of the testatrix the estate was closed in the county court of Kankakee county. H. M. Stone and Harry L. Crawford continued to act jointly as such trustees until the death of Harry L. Crawford. After the death of Harry L. Crawford, H. M. Stone continued to act as sole trustee until in February, 1919, when his resignation was accepted and his report was approved by the circuit court of Kankakee county. The Kankakee County Trust and Savings Bank of Kankakee was appointed as successor in trust to H. M. Stone; subsequent to its appointment said bank changed its corporate name to City Trust & Savings Bank of Kankakee, Illinois, and as such trustee said bank has acted continuously from the date of its appointment, and is now acting as the trustee of the trust fund in question.

It might be well to say in passing that the record discloses that the executors in September, 1905, and before the last above-mentioned decree was filed in the circuit court of Kankakee county, set apart and paid to themselves as directed under said second clause of said will, and for the purposes therein mentioned, the sum of $40,000.

Harry Lee Knight died August 2, 1926, being a widower at the time of his death. Carolyn Knight Mary on, his daughter, predeceased him, leaving surviving her no child nor children, nor descendants of the same, but did leave surviving her, her husband, A. C. Maryon; that said Harry Lee Knight also left surviving him Gertrude L. Knight and Camden Knight; said Gertrude L. Knight and Camden Knight, children of the said Harry Lee Knight, are both adults, Camden Knight being the administrator of the estate of Harry Lee Knight, deceased.

The record shows that plaintiff in error filed its final report as trustee in November, 1926; upon the filing of the same it caused notice to be given of such report to all persons interested; answers were filed to this report; subsequently at the January term, 1927, an amended final report was filed, the answer filed to the original final report stood as answer to the amended final report, and upon hearing had on said amended final report, a decree of distribution was entered. The decree, as entered at the January term, 1927, of the circuit court of Kankakee county, finds that A. C. Maryon, surviving husband of Carolyn Knight Mary-on, is not entitled to participate in the distribution of the trust fund, and it is urged by the plaintiff in error that such finding is erroneous, it being the contention of the plaintiff in error that under the second clause of the will of Helen L. Huling, Carolyn Knight Maryon took a vested interest in the trust fund, subject only to the life estate of Harry Lee Knight; that this trust fund, being personalty, upon the death of the said Carolyn Knight Maryon, the same descended under the statute of descent to A. C. Maryon, surviving husband of Carolyn Knight Maryon.

It is the contention of the defendants in error that the gift to the children of Harry Lee Knight is of personal property only, and arises from a mere direction to pay the fund to them at a future time, and that the context of the provision of the will raises the inference that the bequest is contingent upon the legatees surviving their father.

Cross errors are assigned by Camden Knight individually, and as administrator of the estate of Harry Lee Knight, deceased, and by Gertrude L. Knight, defendants in error.

It is the contention of the cross-complainants, who have assigned cross errors, that while the executors, trustees, sole trustee, and successors in trust have fully and accurately accounted for all funds received in the course of said trust, yet they insist that the will provides that the income received from the trust fund set apart for Harry Lee Knight should have been paid to Harry Lee Knight during his lifetime, as the same was received by said- trustees. Under this provision they contend that said income should have been paid to Harry Lee Knight from the date of the death of Helen L. Huling and not only from the time that the executors set aside said fund as they have done, and that instead of paying the income from the date of the death of Mrs. Huling, the executors permitted the income on said forty thousand dollar trust fund to accumulate and become a part of the residuary estate from the time of her death, June 2, 1904, until September, 1905, or a period of about" 15 months.

A number of questions are raised upon the record, the principal one of which involves the right of A. C. Maryon to share in the distribution of the said trust fund. The decision of this question depends entirely upon whether or not the children of Harry Lee Knight took a vested or contingent interest in the trust fund.

It will be observed from the language of the second clause of the will in question that the gift was not to a class but to certain named children who were designated as the persons to whom the fund should belong upon the death of their father. It is a rule of construction that estates, legal or equitable, given by will, should always be regarded as vesting immediately, unless the testator has, by very clear words, manifested an intention that they should be contingent on a future event. There may be a vested remainder in equitable as well as in legal estates. Where a testator devises the legal title of his property to his executors for the use of his wife for life, or until her marriage, with a remainder to his son, the latter will take a vested equitable estate in remainder. Scofield v. Olcott, 120 Ill. 362. An estate is vested when there is an immediate right of present enjoyment, or a present fixed right of future enjoyment. It takes effect, in interest and right, immediately on the.death of the testator, although it may not, at that time, take effect in possession and enjoyment; and if it be a remainder, it cannot take effect, in possession and enjoyment, until the death of the devisee for life, or other determination of the particular estate. Scofield v. Olcott, supra.

The law favors the vesting of estates at the earliest possible moment, and estates devised will vest in interest at the death of the testator unless some later time for their vesting is clearly expressed, by words of the will, or by necessary implication therefrom. Carter v. Carter, 234 Ill. 507-511, 512; Scofield v. Olcott, 120 Ill. 362; Kellett v. Shepard, 139 Ill. 433; Grimmer v. Friederich, 164 Ill. 245; and Knight v. Pottgieser, 176 Ill. 368.

There is no language m the will before us for consideration that indicates an intention that the devise to the children should be contingent upon their surviving their father. A contingent remainder is one limited to take effect, either to an uncertain person or upon an uncertain event. It is limited by the instrument creating it, either to a person not yet ascertained or not in being, or so as to depend upon an event which may never happen. It is an estate which is not ready to come into possession at any moment when the prior estate may end. On the other hand, if the estate is at any time ready to come into possession, providing the prior estate should end, then it is a vested estate. Whenever the person who is to succeed to the estate in remainder is in being and is ascertained, and the event which by express limitation will terminate the precedent estate is certain to happen, the remainder is vested. The uncertainty which distinguishes the contingent from the vested remainder is not the uncertainty whether the remainderman will live to enjoy the estate, but whether he will ever have the right to such enjoyment. Here the persons to whom the remainder was given, and three children of Harry Lee Knight, were mentioned by name; they were in being and were ascertained; there was no uncertainty as to the persons who should take the remainder, and they had a present capacity to take it at the death of the testatrix, if the life estate of their father had been terminated. Neither was there any uncertainty as to the time; the death of the father was certain to happen, and the particular estate would be thereby terminated. Carter v. Carter, 234 Ill. 507-511, 512.

A bequest of personal property, though made wholly by direction to pay or distribute at the termination of a prior estate, will vest at once, the right of enjoyment only being postponed, where the distribution is not postponed for reaáons personal to the legatee, but •merely to let in the prior estate. Knight v. Pottgieser, 176 Ill. 368. In Knight v. Pottgieser, supra, there was a devise to the testator’s wife for life, and upon her death “the same to go to and be divided amongst my children and their descendants in equal shares.” It was-held that the children took vested interests, because, though the gift arose wholly out of the direction to distribute in futuro, yet such distribution was deferred merely because of the presence of the life estate, and not for any reasons personal to the legatee.

• In Bucher v. Burnham, 146 Ill. 9, testator devised to his wife for life, and on her death the estate then remaining to “be by my surviving executor, equally divided between my said five children.” The interest of the children was held to be vested because the de~ vise was postponed only for the convenience of the property. In Dee v. Dee, 212 Ill. 338, after a gift to the testator’s wife for life, of all real and personal property, the will provides: “After the decease of my said wife, all my property, both real and personal, shall be divided between all my children.” It was held that the children took vested interests because the postponement was merely for the convenience of the estate, and not for reasons personal to the legatee.

It is insisted by the defendants in error that the Supreme Court, in its decision in construing the will in question, held that the devise of the fund mentioned in the second clause thereof, vested in the trustees and not in Harry Lee Knight or his children; that since it did not vest in Harry Lee Knight, or in his children, the remainder is a contingent one. With this contention, we cannot agree. The question presented in the construction of the will on the appeal was the disposition of certain funds which were to fall into the residuum. Clause 12 of the will provides: “It is my will that any property of my estate, real or personal, of whatever kind and wherever the same may be, which is not hereinbefore otherwise specifically mentioned and disposed of, shall, by the executors of this will, be converted into money, and such money shall be distributed and paid to the legatees hereinbefore named, other than the said named Cornelia Stone, Genevieve Parker, and May Parker, to each in proportion to the legacies hereinbefore specifically fixed and mentioned.” It will be seen from a reading of the opinion of the Supreme Court that in the construction of the will it was necessary to ascertain who was meant as legatees, in view of clause 12, for the purpose of determining who should receive the residuum, and in order to do that it was held that the trustees were the legal legatees, to whom the money in the second and fourth clauses of the will, being the corpus of the trust fund held for the benefit of Harry Lee Knight and George B. Knight, was given, and in whom, for all legal purposes, title was vested. The title was vested in them, the trustees, pending the period of the trust and for the purposes of the trust, and the court so held.

In its opinion, the court among other things, at page 407 (218 Ill.) said:

“We think a single consideration will dispose of all the questions raised by the respective parties touching so much of the residuum as follows the legacies for the benefit and use of Harry Lee Knight and George B. Knight. Harry Lee Knight was to take but a life estate in the legacy to him, and the vesting of the legacy to George B. Knight was contingent upon his attaining the age of thirty years. As we read and construe the will, the trustees are the legal legatees to whom the money in the second and fourth clauses of the will, being the corpus of the trust funds, held for the benefit of Harry Lee Knight and George B. Knight, was given, and in whom, for all legal purposes, title was vested. The said trust funds so vesting in them pending the period of the trust for the purposes of the trusts, they took immediate title to the corpus of such funds. No other rational conclusion can be drawn from the language of the mil that ‘such money shall be distributed and paid to the legatees hereinbefore named, ’ than that it meant those persons as legatees who took the immediate title to the legacies provided for in the will. If it be held that Harry Lee Knight is a legatee, it must as well be held, and we think, with greater force, that his children, in whom the corpus is vested and who are to take after his life, are also legatees, and the peculiar question would be presented that is suggested by Harry Lee Knight as to the basis upon which such residuum should be divided between them; that is to say, whether Harry Lee Knight should take a portion of the residuum absolutely, such as his prospects for life under the life tables would give, and the remainder be distributed among his children, or whether we should exclude his children from the class as legatees and give all to him, or exclude him from the class as a legatee and give all to the children. The mere suggestion of such a situation is a strong argument in favor of the position that the testatrix never contemplated that such questions should arise, but rather that, whatever portion of the residuum she distributed to the fund held for Harry Lee Knight and for George B. Knight, should follow the same course that the principal or corpus of the fund was directed to go and should vest in the trustees, and not in the children or in Harry Lee Knight or George B. Knight.” This vesting however, as we have already seen, was vested in the trustees only for the period of the trust and for the purposes of the trust. The court in its decision recognized that the children of Harry Lee Knight took a vested interest in the trust fund provided for in the second clause of the will. It appears to us that the testatrix expressed a clear intention to place the corpus in the three children in equal shares upon the death of their father, and did not contemplate that any portion of the bequest would lause by reason of the death of a child.

We are of the opinion, therefore, that the devise to the children in the second clause of the will was a vested interest and not contingent; that A. O. Maryon, as the surviving husband of Carolyn Knight Maryon, is entitled to share in the distribution of the trust fund and take the entire share which his wife would have taken, if living.

The next question presented for consideration is that arising by reason of the assignment of cross errors by the cross-complainants, in which they insist that it was the duty of the executors to pay income to Harry Lee Knight on the forty thousand dollar trust fund, from the time of the death of Mrs. Huling, which occurred June 2,1904, until September, 1905, when the executors set aside to themselves, as trustees, the sum of $40,000. In this connection it is well to keep in mind the second clause of the will which provides: “I do give and bequeath to my nephew Harry Lee Knight, son of my late brother, Camden Knight, the use and income of forty thousand dollars ($40,000); that is to say, that out of my estate, there shall be taken and held by Harry L. Crawford and H. M. Stone, now residents of the City of Kankakee, State of Illinois, jointly, the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in lawful money of the United States, as trustees and in trust for the use and benefit of said Harry Lee Knight for and during his lifetime, * * * and pay to said Harry Lee Knight such income as the same shall be received by said trustees.” It will be noted that Crawford and Stone were not authorized, directed or empowered to act with reference to this income, except in the capacity of trustees, and that the direction was to take $40,000 out of the estate. In other words they were empowered as executors to pay to themselves, as trustees, $40,000' only out of her estate. This clause of the will expressly says that the income shall be paid “as the same shall be received by the said trustees.” No payment was to be made out of the corpus of $40,000, nor out of the estate. It will be remembered that Mrs. Huling died June 2, 1904. A bill to construe her will was filed on the 14th day of November, 1904. The original decree in said cause was entered, in May, 1905, and the final decree, after appeal to the Supreme Court, was entered on the 23rd day of January, 1906. In the final decree we find the following order: “It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the executors shall set apart, out of the funds of said estate, the sum of forty thousand dollars ($40,000), which shall be held in trust, the income of which shall be paid to Harry Lee Knight, during his lifetime.” It is true, however, that the executors paid themselves, as trustees, the sum of $40,000 in September, 1905, from which time it appears that the income on the entire sum was paid until the date of the death of Harry Lee Knight. The court, of course, in rendering its decree, had before it the question whether or not the executors should set aside the $40,000 as directed in said clause of the will. The record discloses that Harry Lee Knight was a party to the decree, and the suit in which it was entered. The decree was a final one, and all the parties thereto, including Harry Lee Knight, were bound by it.

No good reason has been suggested by the cross-complainants why the corpus of the trust fund should be disturbed to pay the income to the estate of Harry Lee Knight. It cannot be paid out of the trust fund, because the clause of the will providing for said fund expressly states that the income should be paid as received by the trustees. It is conceded by all parties in interest that Harry Lee Knight received the entire .income from the trust fund, after it was established and set aside, up to the last report preceding his death, and the language of the will of the testatrix makes it plain that the income from the trust fund of $40,000, after the same was established, was all that he was entitled to receive.

Moreover, the time allowed for the investment of trust moneys is to be such as the circumstances of each case show to be reasonable. 39 Cyc. 392; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 11 N. J. Eq. 281. The fund was earning no income prior to the time of its being invested. The record shows that the executors of the will were discharged by the order of the county court of Kankakee county, entered at the October term, 1914, and the final report, on which said order was predicated, had attached to it the final receipt of Harry Lee Knight, dated March, 1914, by which receipt Harry Lee Knight receipted H. L. Crawford and H. M. Stone, executors, in full satisfaction of his distributive share of said estate and all demands against H. L. Crawford and H. M. Stone, as such executors, and by said receipt he entered his appearance at the hearing upon the final report of said executors, waiving all notice of said hearing, and consented to the immediate discharge of Crawford and Stone from said office as executors, by the court.

It does not appear that Harry Lee Knight ever made any claim for the payment of the alleged income, now sought by the cross-complainants. The representative and heirs of Harry Lee Knight are estopped to claim by laches the income alleged to have been due him for the last 22 or 23 years. In Genz v. Genz, 254 Ill. 161, the court, at page 166, said: “The claim of complainants, upon its face and as set forth in their bill, appears to be stale, and the rule is almost universal that a court of equity will not encourage the assertion of a claim which is stale. Howe v. South Park Com’rs, 119 Ill. 101; French v. Thomas, 252 id. 65; Kerfoot v. Billings, 160 id. 563.” A party who, with full knowledge of the facts, sleeps upon his rights for 19 years without asserting his equities, and no sufficient excuse for such delay is shown, his laches will be such as to present a bar to relief in a court of equity. Castner v. Walrod, 83 Ill. 171. When the question of laches is involved, facts which would put a person of ordinary prudence upon inquiry will charge him with such notice as could have been obtained had inquiry been made. Mason v. Odum, 210 Ill. 471.

The laches of Harry Lee Knight is imputable to his representative and heirs. Genz v. Genz, 254 Ill. 166. In view of the facts, as disclosed by the record and the law arising therefrom, we are of the opinion that the cross-complainants are not entitled to the relief they claim by reason of the assignment of cross errors.

We conclude, therefore, that the decree of distribution should have found that Carolyn Knight Maryon had a vested interest in the trust fund in question; that although she predeceased the life tenant, her father, A. C. Maryon, her husband, is entitled to receive her share in said trust fund. Therefore, the decree and order of distribution is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the trustee recast its account and pay to A. C. Maryon the share of the trust fund that would have gone to Carolyn Knight Maryon if she were living.

Reversed and remanded with directions.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

license: Public Domain

text:
    First District.
    Valaree E. Cox, appellee, v. Yellow Cab Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 31,754.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    John A. Bloomingston, for appellant. Joseph D. Ryan and C. E. Stenning, for appellee; Joseph D. Ryan and Edmund M. Sinnott, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frances Evelyn Smith, defendant in error, v. Carl E. Smith, sometimes known as Edgar C. Smith, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 31,983.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Church, Haft, Robertson & Crowe, for plaintiff in error; Egbert Robertson, of counsel. Roy C. Woods and John H. Bishop, for defendant in error; Roy S. Gaskill, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Selma Andersen, appellee, v. E. P. Byrnes, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,205.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 29, 1928.
    Kirkland, Patterson & Fleming, for appellant; David Jaeker, Joseph H. Pleek and William H. Symmes, of counsel. Finn & Miller, for appellee; Frank Johnston, Jr., of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court-.


text:
    Lewis Harman, appellee, v. Charles H. Schweppe et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,248.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 29, 1928.
    Gardner, Foote, Burns & Morrow, for appellants; Walter M. Fowler, of counsel. Good, Childs, Bobb & Wescott, for appellee; Walter E. Beebe and Robert W. Childs, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph Frohlich for use of Hortense P. Straus, appellee, v. J. M. Camelon and A. Robertson, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,339.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Rehearing denied and opinion modified May 29, 1928.
    J. M. Camelen, pro se, and Ernest Severy, for appellants. Samuels, Lawton & Wittelle, for appellee; Herbert H. Scheier, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Sterling-Midland Coal Company, appellee, v. Great Lakes Coal & Coke Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,385.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; J. Sidney Condit and M. Ogden West, of counsel. John J. Sherlock and Haight, Adcock, Haight & Harris, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Sol Rubin, appellant, v. Samuel Midlinsky et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,433.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Granville W. Browning and Clark & Clark, for appellant. Epstein & Feiwell, for, appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lester U. Stenhouse, appellee, v. Mike Telechansky, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,439.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Rosenberg, Braude & Zimmerman, for appellant. Nicholas J. Mascha, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Paul Ellis, appellee, v. Louis A. Mandel and Anna Mandel, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,465.
    McSurely, J., dissents.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Isidore Levin, for appellants. Albert Hoffman, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Alvin E. Nelson and Earl S. Nelson, trading as Nelson Brothers, defendants in error, v. Ernest T. Wix, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,482.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Wyman, Hopldns, MeKeever & Colbert, for plaintiff in error; Harold Engstrom, of counsel. A. J. Deutsehman, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles Horn, trading as Charles Horn Lumber Company, appellee, v. Dan La Bar and E. F. Fichter, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,542.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Brown, Brown & Brown, for appellants. Louis J. Jacobson, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis Misuralli, appellee, v. Israel Goldberg, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,569.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Julian J. Luster, for appellant. Golden & Hagen, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frank P. Nepper, appellant, v. Helen Fichter Nepper, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,751.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Harold Engstrom, for appellant; Austin L. Wyman, of counsel. William Capesius, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice McSurely

text:
    P. W. O’Toole, plaintiff in error, v. Shank Company, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 32,503.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Samuel B. King, for plaintiff in error. Robert W. Dunn, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Elsa Sippel, defendant in error, v. Ernest H. Sippel, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,586.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    William R. Brand, for plaintiff in error. Socrates & Davis, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Bella Schiff, appellant, v. Sarah Stamler and Philip Stamler, appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,640.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Martin M. Gross, for appellant. Samuel Mieon, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Paul Gerhardt, appellee, v. Horace L. Brand, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,675.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Litsinger, Healy & Reid, for appellant. Keehn, Woods & Weisl, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Louis Goldman, trustee for the benefit of creditors of Slade, Tenney & Weadley, appellant, v. P. N. Nelson Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,693.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Goldman, Allshouse & Healy, for appellant; Robert G. Dreffein, of counsel. Burry, Johnstone & Peters, for appellee; Arthur Dixon, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice O’Connor

text:
    William B. Engelhardt, plaintiff in error, v. August A. Meyer et al., defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 31,131.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Leesman & Roemer, for plaintiff in error; Raymond C. Sehnell, of counsel. Albert B. Gates and William J. Lacey, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Albin Anderson, plaintiff in error, v. Harry Glisker et al., defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 32,208.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 29, 1928.
    John E. Owens, for plaintiff in error; Raymond C. Sehnell, of counsel. Philip P. Sachs, for defendants in error; Arthur R. Seelig, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Thomas J. Grady, appellant, v. Thomas Maloney, appellee. Eric A. Hoelter, appellant, v. Thomas Maloney, appellee.
    Gen. Nos. 32,289 and 32,290.
    Gen. No. 32,291.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    George P. Barrett, Charles V. Barrett and John E. McCoy, for appellants; Guy Van Schaick, of counsel. M. D. Dolan, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Peabody Coal Company, appellant, v. James Cox Davis, agent, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,384.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 29, 1928.
    Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; Silas H. Strawn, Harold Beacom and George T. Evans, of counsel. Daniel Taylor and A. A. McLaughlin, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    F. D. Carpenter Coal Company, appellee, v. Alfred Hamburger, Inc., appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,535.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Sissman & Sissman, for appellant. Newby & Murphy, for appellee; John B. King and L. A. Wescott, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ernest Gewalt et al., appellees, v. Edward D. Roseen et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,566.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    George E. Arthur, for appellants. G. J. Avery and C. C. Bombaugh, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Fred A. Gariepy, defendant in error, v. Marie T. Brammer, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,600.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Rehearing denied.May 29, 1928.
    William R. Peacock, for plaintiff in error. Owen Rail, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Irving Greenwald, appellant, v. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,708.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1928.
    Peden, Kahn & Murphy, for appellant; Gerald Ryan, of counsel. Charles D. Clark and Henry D. Sheean, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

text:
    Ida G. Hogg, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Lloyd W. Hogg, deceased, appellee, v. Robert Eckhardt, appellant.
    Gen. No. 31,999.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Cooke, Sullivan & Ricks, George H. Mason and Ben N. Breding, for appellant; George A. Cooke and Edward H. Fiedler, of counsel. Albert Fink, Francis M. Lowes and Henry N. Shabsin, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Gridley

text:
    Wilshire Apartment Building Corporation, appellee, v. Deane Moffat Linton, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,316.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Joseph B. Lawler, for appellant. Gann, Seeord & Stead, for appellee; Lpy N. McIntosh and Junius C. Scofield, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Emil H. Christiansen, appellee, v. A. L. Bentley & Son, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,325.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Harvey L. Cavender and Frank H. Shapiro, for appellant. Newton R. Gilmore, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Bella Schiff, appellee, v. Abe Kessler and Jenny (or Jennie) Kessler, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,334.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Maurice L. Davis, for appellants. Samuel H. Fleischer, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    J. A. Oettinger, appellee, v. Bert L. White Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,358.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Cooke, Sullivan & Ricks, for appellant; Oliver R. Barrett, of counsel. Charles E. Schiller, for appellee; James E. McGrath, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    George F. Miller, appellant, v. Herbert D. Peterson and C. M. Vardi, appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,369.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    A. F. W. Siebel, for appellant. George E. Woods, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Matteson-Fogarty-Jordan Company, appellee, v. G. M. Atwell, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,379.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Wisner & Walsh, for appellant. Mack & Wikoff, for appellee; Howard H. Wikoff and Henry Glenn Ross, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Seanlan

text:
    William B. Clark, plaintiff in error, v. Mattie Thompson and Mrs. E. A. Harris, defendants in error.
    Gen No. 31,994.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Morris, Cashin & Dickerson, for plaintiff in error. Frank & Shomberg, for defendants in error; Bernard Shomberg, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Seanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Scanlan

text:
    Paul Bloom, appellee, v. Samuel Handelsman and Esther Handelsman, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,221.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 2, 1928.
    Tarnopol & Flamm, for appellants.' Max M. & Samuel Grossman and Henry H. Koven, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    S. G. Fournier, appellee, v. Wiswell Radio Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,389.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Kirkland, Patterson & Fleming, for appellant; David J acker and William H. Symmes, of counsel. Cochrane & George, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Anne Delson, defendant in error, v. H. Jay Delson, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,407.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    John R. McCabe and Clyde C. Fisher, for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    In re petition of Joseph Majewski under the Insolvent Debtors’ Act. Eleanor Durina, respondent, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,515.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Leesman, Roemer & Sehnell, for plaintiff in error. J. J. Buckley, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Sarah Tepper, defendant in error, v. Jack Tepper, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,536.
    Opinion filed June 19, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 2, 1928.
    Trainor & Trainor, for plaintiff in error. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; John Holman and Edward E. Wilson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

text:
    Hunt Brothers Packing Company, appellee, v. Max Udelowish, trading as Standard Grocery Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,377.

      Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Harry H. Krinsky, for appellant. Follansbee, Shorey & Sehupp, for appellee; Clyde E. Shorey and Louis W. Becker, Jr., of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Bates A. Clarke, appellant, v. Illinois Commercial Men’s Association, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,510.
    Taylor, J., dissents.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Rathje, Wesemann, Hinckley & Barnard, for appellant; John Laux, of counsel. Ryan, Condon & Livingston, for appellee; Lowell A. Lawson, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice

text:
    Leonard Auslander, appellee, v. Filler, Wilson & McClelland, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,547.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    J. V. Delaney, for appellant. Maurice L. Davis, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice

Holdom delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Holdom

text:
    Mike Rimanich, appellee, v. Jack Millen, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,556.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Jay J. McCarthy, for appellant. Henry H. Markovitz and Thomas F. Reilly, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    S. E. Basinski, appellee, v. Julius Wilichko, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,581.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Bryant, Meneely, Irrmann & Lewe, for appellant; John C. Lewe and John Zuris, of counsel. John F. O’Toole, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Taylor

text:
    Will Lightning, defendant in error, v. Joseph Laboda, alias Frank Laboda, and Agnieska Laboda, plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 31,976.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Eugene L. MeGarry, for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ferguson Coal Company, appellee, v. Harry Vehon and Argyle Building Corporation, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,363.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Hirseh, Chaikin & Bloch, for appellants. Cochrane & George, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Wilson

text:
    Harvey H. Moller, appellee, v. Sears, Roebuck & Company and Sears, Roebuck & Company of Illinois, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,302.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Church, Haft, Robertson & Crowe, for appellants; Burt A. Crowe, of counsel. Aaron R. Eppstéin, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Dora Eisenstein and Josephine Silverberg, appellees, v. George C. Adams et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,331.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 5, 1928.
    Adams & Baker, for appellants; J. N. Baker, of counsel. Perlman, Goodman & Scolnik, for appellees; Avern B. Scolnik, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Thomas Bodkin and Hjalmar Chelberg, appellees, v. Irving Isador, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,335.

      Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Harold L. Feigenholtz, for appellant. Will O. Moody and Bradley, Williams, Harper & Farrell, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Walenty Roszkowiak, defendant in error, v. Alozy Roszkowiak and Anna Roszkowiak, plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 32,438.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 5, 1928.
    Louis Greenberg and John F. Tyrrell, for plaintiffs in error; Ernest C. Reniff and Gilbert Nelson, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Walenty Sobczenski and Franciska Sobczenski, appellants, v. King John 3rd Sobieski No. 1 Building & Loan Association, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,476.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Morris & Allen, for appellants. W. Otto Wielgoreeki and Lee Walker, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Germaine Snider, appellant, v. Charles H. Snider, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,513.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Steiner & Seteeka, for appellant. John T. Conlon, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Albert Jampolis, appellee, v. Adolph Trost and Emil Mack, defendants. Adolph Trost, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,541.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 5, 1928.
    Thompson, Tyrrell So Chambers, for appellant; Walter H. Chambers, of counsel. Frank J. Jacobson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Clinton Glass Company, appellee, v. Justine E. Scharmer, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,584.
    Opinion filed June 20, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 5, 1928.
    Ernest Saunders, for appellant. Howard D. Moses, for appellee; Carl J. Appell, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

text:
    Tony Mrozek, appellant, v. Fred A. Rauch, trading as F. A. Rauch & Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,548.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Solomon Lettvin, for appellant. Samuel Berenbaum, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The Newton & Hoit Company, appellant, v. Simon W. Straus et al., trading as S. W. Straus & Company, appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,620.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Moses, Kennedy, Stein & Bachrach, for appellant; Julius Moses, Walter Bachrach and Walter H. Moses, of counsel. Gottlieb, Schwartz & Markheim, for appellees; Ulysses S. Schwartz and Claude A. Roth, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Chicago Title & Trust Company, appellee, v. Georgiana De Lasaux et al., on appeal of Georgiana De Lasaux, appellant. F. W. Harsh, Jr., appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,659.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 9, 1928.
    Harry W. Standidge, for appellant. Tyler Dotson, Geter & Loriek, for F. W. Harsh, Jr., appellee. Edmund J. Reynolds, for Chicago Title & Trust Co., appellee; Sherman C. Spitzer, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William H. Wilson, appellee, v. Henry Raeder, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,721.

      Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 9, 1928.
    Leesman, Roemer & Sehnell and Haight, Adcock & Banning, for appellant. Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for appellee; Harold Beaeom and George T. Evans, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lillian R. Seymour, appellee, v. Sigmund Dunzinski, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,563.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Alexander W. Jamieson and L. J. Bere, for appellant; Socrates & Davis, of counsel. Alvin Glen Hubbard, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Elkon Works, appellant, v. F. C. West & Company, trading as Thomas Sales Company, appellee.
    Gen. Nos. 32,572 and 32,573.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Montgomery, Hart & Smith, for appellant; William E. Hooper and Victor C. Milliken, of counsel. Benjamin T. Roodhouse and Cecil C. Erickson, for appellee; Edgar H. Sehroeder, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Lawrence Splan, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,597.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Cook & Albert and Ernest D. MaeDougall, for plaintiff in error. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; John Holman and Edward E. Wilson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles A. Manthie, appellee, v. Albert Shepanek, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,629.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Harold A. Fein, for appellant. Ray & Pease, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Central Refinance Corporation, appellant, v. John Sipich, also known as John Cipic, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,654.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Mort D. and Frank Goldberg, for appellant; Mort D. Goldberg, of counsel. Thomas A. Green, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    City of Chicago, appellee, v. O. L. Hagley, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,765.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Fyffe & Clarke, for appellant. Samuel A. Ettelson, Corporation Counsel, and M. J. Maloney, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for appellee; Cora B. Hirtzel, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Matchett

text:
    Foreman Trust & Savings Bank, administrator of the estate of Kazimir Proscievich, deceased, appellee, v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,070.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 9, 1928.
    MeCordie, Dent & Freeman, for appellant. H. H. Patterson and Charles C. Bodenstab, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Charles Dickinson Boyles, appellant, v. Charles S. Quinlan, executor of the estate of Albert Dickinson, deceased, et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,101.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Fisher, Boyden, Kales & Bell, for appellant; Walter L. Fisher, Thomas L. Marshall and David A. Watts, of counsel. Eugene H. Garnett, Loeseh, Scofield, Loeseh & Richards, Follansbee, Shorey & Shupp, Butler, Lamb, Foster & Pope, Judah, Willard, Wolf & Reiehmann and Frances Dickinson, pro se, for certain appellees; Eugene H. Garnett, Frank J. Loeseh, Edward M. Burke, Paul D. Miller, Lewis J. West and Charles J. Morriam, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, appellee, v. Standard Trust & Savings Bank, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,142.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Castle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellant; Jesse R. Long and Hargrave A. Long, of counsel. Moses, Kennedy, Stein & Baclirach, for appellee; Walter Baehraeh and Isaac E. Ferguson, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Gregory T. Van Meter, administrator of the estate of Henry C. Eckart, deceased, appellee, v. B. J. Bonk et al. Society of the Divine Word, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,359.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    O’Donnell & O’Donnell, for appellant. Hoag & Ullmann, for appellee; George M. Burditt, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ida Altschuler and Isaac Altschuler, trading as Altschuler Iron & Steel Company, appellees, v. Chicago Smelting & Refining Corporation, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,378.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 9, 1928.
    James R. Quinn, for appellant. Benjamin B. Morris, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Clara Tarrant, plaintiff in error, v. American Mutual Indemnity Company, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 32,500.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Leesman, Roemer & Sehnell, for plaintiff in error. John A. Bloomingston, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William Eugene Leslie, by Addie Miller, appellant, v. City of Chicago, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,560.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Michael W. Kaveney, for appellant. Samuel A. Ettelson, Corporation Counsel, and William D. Saltiel, City Attorney, for appellee; E. Marshall Ambérg and Roy S. Gaskill, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Paul E. Fleming, appellant, v. Lucia A. Ward, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,625.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Newman, Poppenhusen, Stern & Johnston and Bloom & Wester, for appellant. Eastman, White, Hawxhurst & Lind, for appellee; Homer C. Dawson, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Nell Nelp Koempel, appellant, v. Union Bank of Chicago, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,714.
    O’Connor, J., dissents.
    Opinion filed June 25, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 9, 1928.
    C. E. Tripp, for appellant. Joseph B. Lawler, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    William A. Furry, appellee, v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,383.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 9, 1928.
    Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; Silas H. Strawn, Charles J. MeFadden and Harold A. Smith, of counsel. Joseph D. Ryan, for appellee; Joseph D. Ryan and Edmund M. Sinnott, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    S. W. Straus & Company, complainant and appellee, v. Emanuel Stern and Joseph Rosenberg, defendants, on appeal of Joseph Rosenberg, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,758.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1928.
    Sims, Welch, Godman & Stransky, for appellant; Elwood G. God-man and Ralph E. Moody, of counsel. Gottlieb, Schwartz & Markheim, for appellee; Ulysses S. Schwartz, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    W. L. Thorne, appellee, v. The Village of Des Plaines, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,393.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 9, 1928.
    Clithero, Osborn & Stevens, for appellant. Newman, Poppenhusen,
    Stern & Johnston, for appellee; Edward R. Johnston and Henry Jackson Darby, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Home Insurance Company of New York, appellee, v. P. K. Bruchas, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,668.
    Opinion filed July 9, 1928.
    Kasimir P. Gugis, for appellant; P. B. Smith, of counsel. Frederick A. Brown and Wm. G. Worthey, for appellee; Ellis R. Hurd and J. Colburn Hamilton, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    United Military Stores, Inc., appellee, v. Emanuel Schwartz et al., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,891.
    Opinion filed July 9, 1928.
    Albert Sabath and Paul R. Simon, for appellants. Epstein, Feiwell,
    Arvey & Sachs, for appellee; Louis M. Mantynband and Milton Mallín, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    B. F. Guinan, Inc., complainant, v. Chicago & Milwaukee Steamship Company, defendant. Frank Finsthwait, intervening petitioner, appellant, v. Chicago Title & Trust Company, receiver for Chicago & Milwaukee Steamship Company, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,083.
    Opinion filed July 9, 1928.
    Defrees, Buckingham & Baton, for appellant. Kremer, Branand & Hamer, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Federal Motor Truck Company, appellant, v. E. L. Cook, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,524.
    Opinion filed July 9, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 20, 1928.
    Zane, Morse & Norman, for appellant. Rathje, Wesemann, Hinckley & Barnard, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    E. G. McKee, appellee, v. G. B. Niles, trading as Jack Niles & Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,724.
    Opinion filed July 9, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 20, 1928.
    Culver, Andrews & King, for appellant; James B. MeKeon, of counsel. Phil S. Roe and David Larson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frances Forrest, by William Forrest, defendant in error, v. Frank Chmeler et al., plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 32,753.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    F. O. Floberg, for plaintiffs in error. Simons, De Souchet & Contarsy, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

text:
    Ole Pedersen, appellee, v. City of Chicago, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,395.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Samuel A. Ettelson, Corporation Counsel, William D. Saltiel, City Attorney, and Arthur Donoghue, Assistant City Attorney, for appellant; Cora B. Hirtzel and Edward P. Madigan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel. Philip Bosenthal and Stuart B. Krohn, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Leo E. Burr, appellee, v. W. E. Schofield, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,437.
    Barnes, J., dissents.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    MeGilvray, Eames, Vaughan & Tilley, for appellant; Pranklin E. Vaughan, of counsel. S. L. & Fred Lowenthal and Harry P. Munns, for appellee; Harry P. Munns, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Hans Schwenneke, appellee, v. Globe Paper Box Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,460.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Alfred Beck, for appellant. Rothbart & Lewis, for appellee; Wharton Plummer, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Arthur W. Bahr, plaintiff in error, v. Alfon E. Bahr and Alfon E. Bahr & Company, defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 32,469.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Bangs & Frankhauser, for plaintiff in error; Wendell McHenry, of counsel. Devenish & Luebeek and William H. Holly, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Barnes

text:
    Carl H. Hoper, defendant in error, v. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 32,490.

      Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Hicks & Folonie, for plaintiff in error. John E. Crahen and Harold E. Sullivan, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    C. H. Glashagel, trading as O. K. Grocery & Market, appellant, v. A. H. Waddington and Mrs. A. H. Waddington, appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,504.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Walter Hamilton, for appellant. Stanley L. Shetler, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Standard Trust & Savings Bank and Chicago Title & Trust Company, administrators of the estate of Edwin B. Jennings, deceased, appellees, v. F. W. Cherry and Frederick W. Hill, appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,528.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Alden, Latham & Young and John F. Spohn, for appellants; K. V. MaeFarland, of counsel. Castle, Williams, Long & Castle, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court


text:
    Benjamin Schatz, appellant, v. West Side Trust & Savings Bank, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,552.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Harry Hamill, for appellant; Frank A. Ramsey, of counsel. Weissenbach, Hartman, Craig & Okin, for appellee; Harry Okin, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Deree & Company, appellee, v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,567.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.

      Fred H. Montgomery and Herbert J. Deany, for appellant; Vernon W. Foster, of counsel. Louis W. Mack, for appellee; William H. Tuttle, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The Harmony Cafeteria Company et al., appellees, v. International Supply Company, appellant.
    Gen. Nos. 32,362 and 32,264.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Hirsch, Chaikin & Bloch, for appellant. Harry S. Harned, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Rex Rayon Thread Company, appellee, v. Booster Glove Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 32,463.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 20, 1928.
    Tale & Tale, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joseph V. Sterba et al., appellants, v. George O. Schoolcraft, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,485.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Sidney S. Pollack and William G. Lesemann, for appellants. Brundage, Landon & Holt and Elmer E. Jackson, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Evelyn Silverberg, appellee, v. Bernard W. Snow, bailiff of the Municipal Court of Chicago, and Chas. A. Stevens & Bros., appellants.
    Gen. No. 32,501.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    • George R. Fitzmauriee, for appellants. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    George P. Lee, appellant, v. Roy L. Hammond, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,546.

      Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    George W. Killelea and Ziv, Loomis & Silvertrust, for appellant.
    J. Samuel Lieberman, Charles Waldman and Mesirow & Berger, for appellee; Irving G. Zazove, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    W. E. Slaughter, trading as United Glove Company, appellant, v. Superior Glove Company et al., appellees.
    Gen. No. 32,580.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Vose & Vose, for appellant; John D. Clancy, of counsel. Dittus & Chatroop, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Arthur M. Glatt and Leslie M. Price, trading as Glatt & Price, appellants, v. Hugo Anderson, appellee.
    Gen. No. 32,647.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1928.
    Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for appellants. Deneen, Healy & Lee, for appellee; Harry W. Lippineott and Roy Massena, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Boggs

text:
    Second District.
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Charles Camery, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 7,890.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1928.
    John E. Erwin and George C. Dixon, for plaintiff in error. Mark C. Keller, for defendant in error."
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Alexander Nelson, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 7,908.

      Opinion filed June 27, 1928.
    M. E. Nolan and Frederick H. Lauder, for plaintiff in error. Charles E. Port, Jr., State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Arthur Jacques, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 7,911.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1928.
    Sehriver & Sehriver, for plaintiff in error. Benjamin S. Bell, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Dan H. McNeal, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Jett

text:
    The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mable Shaffer, appellee, v. John Doubet, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,863.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1928.
    R. L. Stuart and Alvah S. Green, for appellant. R. C. Rice and S. M. Meadows, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Harry Zelden, plaintiff in error, v. Commercial Union Assurance Company, defendant in error. Harry Zelden, plaintiff in error, v. North British & Mercantile Insurance Company, defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 7,894.
    Gen. No. 7,895.
    Opinion filed July 12, 1928.
    Frederick Mains and Irving G. Soffran, for plaintiffs in error. John E. Cassidy, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    T. C. Smith, appellee, v. Fred Duckett, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,926.
    Opinion filed July 12, 1928.
    Clyde H. Thompson and Miller & Streeter, for appellant. Adsit, Thompson & Herr, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John T. Boswell, appellee, v. Johnston Lumber Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,866.
    Opinion filed July 12, 1928.
    Thomas J. Welch, for appellant. Martin E. O’Connor, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Dollie M. Schleicher, appellee, v. The Preferred Accident Insurance Company of New York, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,918.
    Opinion filed July 24, 1928.
    Miller, Elliott & Westerveldt and John A. Bloomingston, for appellant. McGrath & Donley and A. B. Copeland, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lottie May Lewis, administratrix of the estate of Max Lewis, deceased, appellant, v. Edward J. Wilmering and Albert Randall, sheriff, appellees.
    Gen. No. 7,818.
    Opinion filed July 24, 1928.
    R. H. Radley, for appellant. Weil, Bartley & Weil, for appellees;
    Joseph E. Bartley and Herbig Younge, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Vacuum Oil Company, appellee, v. H. P. Schlageter, trading as Main Street Garage, appellant.
    Gen. No. 7,828.
    Opinion filed July 24, 1928.
    Lloyd Painter and Boys & Osborn, for appellant. Gleim & Colwell and Butters & Butters, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Royal Indemnity Company of New York, appellant, v. Oscar Moody, appellee.
    Gen. No. 7,831.
    Opinion filed July 24, 1928.
    Phillips & Kitchell, for appellant; George W. Hunt, of counsel.
    Covey, Campbell & Covey, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

text:
    Third District.
    James J. McCarty, conservator of John Condon, defendant in error, v. S. H. Cummins, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 8,072.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Roy M. Seeley, for plaintiff in error. B. L. Catron, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Knights of the Ku KIux Klan, Inc., appellee, v. First National Bank et al., appellants.
    Gen. Nos. 8,117 and 8,128.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Thomas. W. Hoopes and L. E. Stone, for appellants. W. F. Zumbrunn, W. B. Brown, J. H. Connaughton and B. H. Sullivan, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Frederick I. Judson, plaintiff in error, v. First Trust & Savings Bank of Springfield, Illinois, and L. F. McCullough, defendants in error.
    Gen. No. 8,125.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Jacob Levy, for plaintiff in error; J. M. Gwin, of counsel. Bangs & Frankhauser, for defendants in error; Wendell L. McHenry, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    W. Z. Wright et al., defendants in error, v. State Bank of Herrick, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 8,129.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    George B. Rhoads and J. J. Baker, for plaintiff in error. Matheny & Welker and Ward & Pugh, for defendants in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Edward Gross, defendant in error, v. William W. Wheelock and William G. Bierd, receivers of the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, plaintiffs in error.
    Gen. No. 8,133.

      Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    William L. Patton, for plaintiffs in error; Silas H. Strawn and Wm. & Barry Mumford, of counsel. Strubinger & Strubinger and Elizabeth Mayo, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    In re estate of William H. Roberts, deceased. Maude Mikel, appellant, v. Jacob Amstadt and Harry L. Roberts, executors, appellees.
    Gen. No. 8,150.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    M. A. Brennan and W. W. Whitmore, for appellant. Herrick & Herrick, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John McHenry, appellee, v. Jacksonville & Havana Railroad Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,156.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Aaron Sapiro and Epler C. Mills, for appellant. Henry L. Child, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    M. M. Huffaker, appellee, v. Wenzel Fomera, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,180.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Carey E. Barnes, for appellant. Knotts & Knotts, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Nellie Wood, appellee, v. Cecil R. Wood, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,182.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Redmon Redmon, for appellant. Hogan & Reese, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Eldredge

text:
    Ralph Ratcliffe, by Levi Ratcliffe, appellant, v. Grace B. Weese, alias Grace B. Ratcliffe, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,138.

      Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Jos. B. Martin, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Henry Newman and Fred Danielson, trading as Newman & Danielson, appellees, v. Edward Skog, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,149.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Claude M. Swanson, for appellant. F. M. Thompson, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Arthur J. Robinson, appellee, v. Excelsior Stove & Manufacturing Company, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,158.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    C. H. Wood and John T. Inghram, for appellant. John E. Wall, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Niehaus

text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Alex Chesnoy, plaintiff in error.
    Gen. No. 8,126.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    L. E. Stone, for plaintiff in error. Frank M. Barney, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Lester K. Vand'ever, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Forrest Dunsworth, appellee, v. Lena Wheeler, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,154.
    Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Flack & Kerman, for appellant. Curran & Curran, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    H. F. Hirchle, appellee, v. S. H. Cummins, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,173.

      Opinion filed January 25, 1928.
    Carey E. Barnes, for appellant. L. E. Stone, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Shurtleff

text:
    Ella Gidel, appellee, v. John A. Gidel, appellant.
    Gen. No. 8,160.
    Opinion filed February 8, 1928.
    Harold F. Trapp, for appellant. Homer B. Harris, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Lilla M. Solomon, appellee and plaintiff in error, v. Edward C. Solomon, appellant and defendant in error.
    Gen. No. 8,162.
    Opinion filed February 8, 1928.
    Thomas D. Masters and Walter T. Day, for appellant and defendant in error. Gillespie & Gillespie and Edmund Burke, for appellee and plaintiff in error.
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Wilbur Green, appellant, v. The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Helen Groce, appellee.
    Gen. No. 8,168.
    Opinion filed February 8, 1928.
    Carl E. Robinson, T. J. Priest and Barnabas F. Sears, for appellant. John A. McKeene, State’s Attorney, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Newhall

text:
    Fourth District.
    Tennie Glasco, appellee, v. Calvin Caraker and Myrtle Yates, appellants.
    Original opinion filed March 2, 1928.
    Modified and refiled May 22, 1928.
    Rehearing denied May 22, 1928.
    Richard Peery, for appellants. H. A. Spann, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

text:
    Dan Jones, appellee, v. Marlow Park Corporation, appellant.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    W. J. Hill and A. D. Morgan, for appellant. E. N. Bowen and D. L. Duty, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    C. Butkus, appellant, v. Franklin County Coal Company et al., appellees.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    J. Boy Browning and A. D. Morgan, for appellant. E. M. Spiller and C. E. Feirieh, for appellees; Essington & McKibbin, of counsel.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Cook Brothers et al., appellees, v. H. E. Kimmel et al., appellants.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 23, 1928.
    H. E. Kimmel, for appellants. N. I. Glenn and D. F. Moore, for appellees.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    J. B. Reis Lumber Company, appellee, v. Otto Lindow, appellant.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    P. K. Johnson, for appellant. Eugene W. Kreitner, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    James Webb, appellee, v. J. V. Dillman, appellant.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    A. N. Tolliver and Emery E. Calkoon, for appellant. Smith & Smith, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Joe Smykaj, administrator of the estate of Frank Smykaj, deceased, appellant, v. Central Illinois Public Service Company, appellee.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    Moses Pulverman and Tilman B. Cantrell, for appellant. Geo. B.
    Stone, for appellee; Boy B. Martin and August L. Fowler, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Theresa Siekmann, appellant, v. Roy F. Stanton and Mrs. Roy Stanton, known as Grace Stanton, appellees.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 28, 1928.
    R. D. W. Holder, for appellant. McGlynn & McGlynn, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Jacob Boehmer, appellee, v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, appellant.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    Kramer, Kramer & Campbell and Roland H. Wieehert, for appellant; Morison R. Waite and William A. Eggers, of counsel. Karns & Flanders, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Allan J. Postel, administrator of the estate of Henry Hucke, deceased, et al., appellees, v. E. R. Hagist, appellant.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    William E. Wheeler and Bruce A. Campbell, for appellant; Wheeler & Oehmke and Kramer, Kramer & Campbell, of counsel. D. E. Keefe, for appellees; Keefe & Listeman, of counsel.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Mr. Justice Wolfe

text:
    William Akers, plaintiff in error, v. The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.

      Fred W. Gee and Shaw & Huffman, for plaintiff in error. Osear E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, and Philip H. Lewis, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Hurst State Bank of Hurst, Illinois, appellant, v. Estate of Peter K. Friedline, deceased, appellee.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    Hal G. Gallimore and Isaac K. Levy, for appellant. Lawrence A. Glenn, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    C. C. Stotlar and John Y. Stotlar, trading as Stotlar Lumber Yard, appellee, v. Jake Farner, appellant.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    R. E. Doty, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The East Side Packing Company, appellee, v. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, appellant.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    Charles P. Hamill, for appellant. Pope & Driemeyer, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ada Goff, appellee, v. Moses W. Elam, appellant.
    Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 23, 1928.
    Robert E. Wright, for appellant. Sumner & Lewis and Emerson E. Sehnepp, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court,


text:
    Joe Campanella, appellant, v. Illinois Power & Light Corporation, appellee.

      Opinion filed June 1, 1928.
    Rehearing denied July 23, 1928.
    L. A. Cranston, for appellant. Judson Harris and Dryer & Brown, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Illinois Midwest Joint Stock Land Bank, defendant in error, v. George J. McMahon et al. George J. McMahon, plaintiff in error.
    Opinion filed July 16, 1928.
    Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for plaintiff in error. Williamson, Burroughs & Simpson, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    John Owens, appellant, v. S. T. Sanders, special administrator, appellee.
    Opinion filed July 16, 1928.
    J. E. Eeek, for appellant. Wilbur A. Trares, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Eugene Sauget, appellant, v. East Side Levee & Sanitary District, appellee.
    Opinion filed July 16, 1928.
    Rehearing denied August 24, 1928.
    J. J. Buffington, for appellant. J. L. Flanigan and J. E. Hamlin, for appellee.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Gladys E. Merker, appellant, v. Alton & Southern Railroad Company, appellee.
    Opinion filed July 16, 1928.
    Rehearing denied August 24, 1928.
    J. J. Buffington, for appellant. Kramer, Kramer & Campbell, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Ben Merck, appellee, v. William Kloess, appellant.

      Opinion filed July 16, 1928.
    Olyde D. Miller, for appellant. Farmer & Klingel, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. James Hord, plaintiff in error.
    Opinion filed July 16, 1928.
    A. N. Tolliver, for plaintiff in error. Clarence T. Smith, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    King City Building & Loan Association, appellant, v. Thomas E. Summers et al. May E. Beal, executrix, appellee.
    Opinion filed July 16, 1928.
    Albert Watson, for appellant. Conrad Sehul, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


text:
    Buffalo Insurance Company of the City of Buffalo, New York, appellant, v. J. A. Carnahan, appellee.
    Opinion filed July 16, 1928.
    Wm. H. Green, for appellant. Conrad Sehul, for appellee.
   Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    Third District—November Term, 1886.
    Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Catharine Kelly, Administratrix.

      Railroads—Action for Damages for Causing Death—Fellow-Servants— Evidence—Question for Jart/—Instructions—Excessive Number—Discretion—Damages—Whether Excessive.

    1. In an action against a railroad company fo'-recover damages for causing the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, .the question whether at the time of the injury the deceased and the train men were so co-operating in a particular business for a common master as to bring them within the rule governing fellow-servants, is one of fact to be found by the jury under proper instructions.
    2. In the case presented, it is held: That the evidence was such as to require that the instructions should clearly and fairly state the rule of law to he applied; that one of the instructions, in effect, took the question of fellow-servants from the jury; that there was no abuse of discretion in the refusal of the court to pass upon an excessive number of instructions asked; that objections to certain questions put to jurors, touching their inclination if the evidence should be equally balanced, were properly sustained; and that objections to the admission of certain testimony and that the allowance of $2,500 was excessive, are not well taken.
    3. The trial court may, in its discretion, place a limit upon the number of instructions it will consider.
    [Opinion filed February 17, 1887.]

      Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. O. T. Reeves, Judge, presiding.
    Messrs. Fifer & Phillips and Williams & Capen, for appellant.
    Messrs. Stevenson & Ewing, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Regarding the merits only, the more important and controverted questions of fact are whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence and whether he and the train men were fellow-servants.

It can hardly be doubted that the proximate cause of the injury was the manner of making the switch, and that this, under the circumstances, was so dangerous as to constitute negligence, and we are of opinion there is enough in the record to support the verdict so far as it implies that the deceased exercised ordinary care.

Whether the deceased and the train men were fellow-servants within the meaning of the term as it is here employed and as settled by the ruling of the Supreme Court, was a question of fact to be found by the jury under proper instructions.

We regard this the main point in controversy, and as the case must be again tried, we express no opinion upon it. The evidence on this point is such as to require that the instructions should clearly and fairly state the rule of law to • be applied.

The seventh instruction for plaintiff, in effect, took the question of fellow-servants, or not, from the jury. It placed undue stress upon the fact that, ordinarily, the deceased and the train men were engaged in distinct lines of employment.

By the use of the phrase “ was not associated with said train crew in the same line of employment, either at the time of the injury or at any other time,” it seemed to ignore the real point under investigation, viz.: Whether at the time of the injury they were so co-operating in a particular business, for a common master, as to bring them within the rule. The term “same line of employment,” as applied to the facts was, no doubt, understood by the jury to refer to the particular thing one set of men were doing as distinguished from the particular thing the other set were doing, i. e., the train men were switching, the track men were loading a car.

The point to be considered wras rather, whether the two sets of men so working at their respective duties, and necessarily more or less in the way of, and crossing the lines of each other were, or were not so co-operating as to become fellow-servants in the sense of that term as here used.

We think the jury were probably misled by this instruction, and that the error is of sufficient importance to warrant a reversal of the judgment.

It is urged that the court erred in refusing to consider more than twenty instructions for defendant. The statute requiring the court to mark “given” or refused” upon the instructions asked by each party, implies that the court shall first examine before so marking them, and it must also be implied that only a reasonable number shall be presented for consideration.

The law designs that instructions shall be so accurate and appropriate as to, aid the jury in reaching a proper verdict. It was not designed that a party, by asking an unreasonable number, might compel the court either to pass upon them without due consideration or suspend the trial until such consideration could be had. To prevent abuse of this right, and perversion of the law, the court may, in its discretion, place a limit upon the number it will consider, as it may upon the number and length of addresses to the jury and upon the number of witnesses to be heard and the extent of their examination upon each branch of the case; and a.s it may, in general, make such rules and limitations as are necessary to the proper and orderly dispatch of business.

What that limit shall be must depend upon circumstances. It should not be unreasonable nor without due notice. We can not say the discretion was improperly exercised in the present instance.

A majority of the court hold also there was no substantial error in the ruling upon certain questions put to jurors as to how they would be inclined to decide the caso if the evidence were equally balanced and that such a question should be accompanied by a statement of the legal rule involved. The remaining points, as to the admission of testimony that a minor son of deceased is a cripple, the testimony of experts, the impeaching testimony and that the damages are excessive, are overruled.

The condition of the son might be considered in determining the extent of support necessarily required during minority and perhaps afterward.

The expert testimony was relevant and tended to throw light upon an important point in issue, and the impeaching testimony was sufficiently within the range of the questions put to the witness sought to be impeached. The damages, while fully as high as warranted by the .evidence, do not appear to us so high as to call for unfavorable comment.

For the giving of the 7th instruction the judgment will he reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.


author: Wall, J.

text:
    County of Christian v. Charles V. Rockwell.

      Paupers—Medical Services—Emergency—Action against County—Recovery—Costs, j

    1. Where a physician has rendered necessary services, in an emergency, to a minor whose mother is dead and whose father is idle and worthless and does not provide for his children, he may, in the first instance, maintain an action against the county for such part of his bill as the county is liable to pay, although be has property sufficient to pay part of the bill.
    2. When a county is sued as de'enclant it is within the terms of Sec. 7, Chap. 33, R. S., and judgment may be rendered against it for costs.
    [Opinion filed February 17, 1887.]

      In error to-the Circuit Court of Christian County; the Hon. J. J. Phillips, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. John G. Drennan, State’s Attorney, for plaintiff in error.
    The court certainly erred in rendering judgment against the defendant for costs. Sec. 17, Chap. 33, R. S.; People v. Coulters, 9 Ill. App. 39; Cumberland County v. Edwards, 76 Ill. 545.
    Mr. W. M. Provine, for defendant in error.
   Wall, J.

This was an action in assumpsit against the County of Christian to recover pay for professional services rendered by the plaintiff as surgeon to one Eobert Watts, an alleged pauper. The case was tried by the court, a jury being waived, and there was a judgment for plaintiff for $50 and costs, from which an appeal is prosecuted by the county.

It appeared in evidence that the alleged pauper was a boy aged about eleven years old who had been seriously injured by the accidental discharge of a gun. His mother was dead and his father an idle, worthless person wholly without means, had neglected to provide for him, and for a considerable time he had been without a fixed home, going from one place to another and dependent upon charity for his support.

When the accident occurred he was near the house of one Wright, a farmer, by whom he was cared for, and who sent for the plaintiff. It was found that to save the boy’s life it was necessary to amputate the injured leg, and it was important that this should be done promptly.

There was no time to apply for aid to any county official nor was there any attempt to do so, but the operation was performed without delay and with such skill that a rapid recovery ensued. This service was worth $125. The boy had no property except an undivided interest in a small tract of land, which interest was worth about $75. It is clear that if he had been wholly without property he would have been a proper subject for county support and that the emergency was such as to warrant immediate action of the plaintiff without waiting to confer with county officials. Ch. 107, Secs. 14, 23 and 24, R. S.; Seagraves v. City of Alton, 13 Ill. 366, 371; Board of Supervisors v. Reynolds, 49 Ill. 186; Perry County v. City of Du Quoin, 99 Ill. 479.

It is urged, however, that as the boy had a property interest worth $75, he was not within the provision of the law. His estate was inadequate to supply his necessities.

Suppose he had but $5 worth of property, would it be said that he was thereby deprived of the protection of the law ? Manifestly he was joro tanto within the statute. Then was it necessary for the plaintiff to exhaust the estate before presenting his demand against the county ? We think not, and that it was competent for him to sue the county in the first instance, and recover such proportion of his claim as the county would in the end be liable to pay. The allowance made by the court was justified by the proof in the case.

It is objected that it was error to render a judgment against the county for costs. The section cited in support of this proposition, Sec. 17, Ch. 33, and the case referred to in the same connection, would be in point if this wore an action in which the county sues as plaintiff.

Where, however, the county is sued as defendant it is within the terms of Sec. 7, and if the plaintiff recovers his debt or damages, he will also recover costs of suit.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Judgmetvt affirmed.


author: Congee, J.

text:
    G. W. Montgomery and H. C. Craig, Partners, v. W. L. Black et al., Partners.

      Partnership)—Issue as to Existence of—Evidence—Practice.

    1. Where the question at issue is whether several persons are partners) the declarations or admissions of one of them in reference to the existence of the partnership, are inadmissible as against the others.

      2. The appellant can not complain that evidence offered hy himself and in his interest was improperly admitted.
    [Opinion filed February 17, 1887.]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County; the Hon. William Marsh, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. Ira M. Moore, for appellants.
    The defendants by their conduct are estopped from denying that their firm name was W. L. Black & Company, for, by permitting a sign, W. L. Black & Company, dealers in hay, grain and agricultural implements, to be put up, or kept up, at their place of business; by contracting in the firm name of W. L. Black & Company; by receiving and selling goods in that name; by advertising in the papers that the firm of W. L. Black & Company were dealing in hay, grain and agricult- ■ ural implements (St. Louis M. P. Company v. Parker, 59 Ill. 73; Ellis v. Bronson, 40 Ill. 555); by taking notes for agricultural implements, payable to W. L. Black & Company; by signing a note by the name of W. L. Black & Company; by using the letter heads in their common business, stating that they were dealing in hay, grain and agricultural implements (Ellis v. Bronson, 40 Ill. 455); by permitting W. L. Black to open an account in the name of W. L. Black & Company and draw checks in their name, they have held themselves out to the world as partners under that name. Fisher v. Bowles, 20 Ill. 396; Ellis v. Bronson, 40 Ill. 455; Carver v. Dows, Ia. 374; Stark v. Corey, 45 Ill. 431.
    The defendants, Conner and N. S. Black, are not relieved from liability because they did not know, or did not have notice that W. L. Black was dealing with the plaintiffs, as he did, for he was their agent, and knowledge of the agent binds principal. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Holdfodt, 86 Ill. 455. And notice to an agent is notice to the principal. St. P., F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Wells, 89 Ill. 82; Williams v. Tartnall, 29 Ill. 553.
    Messrs. McMurry & McMurry and Bohhey & Woods, for appellees.
   Congee, J.

This was an action for assumpsit to recover upon a promissory note of $100, and a balance upon a bank account of $1,034.02, brought by appellants against William L. Black, Samuel IT. Black and Charles C. Conner. The declaration charged that the two Blacks and Conner were partners, under the name and style of W. L. Black & Company, and as such liable for the note and bank account.

William L. Black was never served, and, so far as we can find from an inspection of the record, his appearance was not entered.

Samuel 34. Black and Conner each filed a plea in abatement denying, under oath, their joint liability with the co-defendant. Upon these two pleas issue was joined, and the court below, a jury having been waived, found the issues for appellees, Samuel if. Black and Conner, and rendered judgment against appellants for costs.

The vital question raised by these pleas was, whether appellees, Conner and Samuel N. Black, were members of the firm of W. L. Black & Company. The evidence upon this point is quite voluminous, and it would subserve no good purpose to discuss it, as we see no good reason for interfering with the conclusion reached by the Circuit Court.

There were admissions and declarations of appellees and William L. Black as to who composed the firm of W. L. Black & Company admitted in evidence upon both sides of the controversy that we regard as incompetent testimony.

The existence of the partnership, as we have said, was the issue being tried, and in such case the admissions or statements of one defendant, in the absence of his co-defendants, in reference to the ex'stence of the partnership, are -inadmissible against his co-defendants. Hahn, etc., v. St. Clair S. & Ins. Co., 50 Ill. 456; Gardner v. N. W. M. Co., 52 Ill. 367.

Especially was it error to admit the statements of W. L. Black, who was not served, and was not appearing in the case, as to the issue of partnership, against Samuel N. Black and Conner. Smith v. Hulett, 65 Ill. 495.

The admission of this evidence being at the instance of appellants, and, if regarded by the court at all, being for their benefit, is not a matter of which they can be heard to complain.

The conclusion reached by the court below, we think, was justified by the proper evidence in the case and, therefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


text:
    Trustees of Schools v. The People of the State of Illinois ex rel.W. M. Duffey et al.

      Schools—Formation of New District—Act of June 18, 1883—Petition to Trustees—Sufficiency of—Affidavit—Mandamus.
    In a proceeding by mandamus to compel certain Trustees of Schools to concur with others in the formation of a new school district, it is held,: That the petition to the trustees was sufficient; that it was unnecessary to set out the boundaries of the old districts; that it is immaterial that an affidavit, not required by law, failed to state all that is required to warrant the formation of a new district; and that the Trustees were bound to grant the petition if the proper conditions existed.
    [Opinion filed February 17, 1887.]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County; the Hon. Thomas M. Shaw, Judge, presiding.
    Mr. William Hon Maus, for appellants.
    Mr. B. S. Prettyman, for appellee.
   Wall, J.

This was a proceeding by mandmnus to compel the appellants, who are Trustees of Schools of two townships, to concur with the trustees of two other townships in the formation of a new school district pursuant to Sec. 1 of the Act of June 18, 1883, Starr & C. Ill. Stat., p. 2214, par. 34.

The appellants demurred to the petition and the demurrer was overruled. The propriety of this ruling is the only question now arising.

The statute referred to provides a mode of forming a new district of territory lying in three or more districts and in three or more townships. Such a territory containing population of not less than 400 may be made a new district upon the petition of two-thirds of the legal voters therein, the proper petitions being presented to the several boards of trustees and notices being given to the several boards of directors whose districts are affected in the'manner fixed by Sec. 33 of the general school law, provided that in the formation of a new district, territory shall not be taken from any existing district so as to leave it with less than twenty families nor with taxable property of an assessed value of less than 150,000. When the proper conditions exist the trustees must grant the petition. They have no discretion. They may inquire into the facts and may grant or deny as the case may warrant, but their decision is not conclusive. The propriety of it may become the subject of judicial investigation in a proceeding by mandamus.

The petition in this case contains all the necessary averments as to the facts required in the formation of the new district, including the allegations, in detail, of the petitions and notices of the several boards of trustees and directors.

Copies of these petitions to the trustees are made exhibits, including copies of certain affidavits as to their truth and certain certificates of the County Clerk as to the amount of taxable property, etc.

It is suggested that these exhibits thus referred to do not support the petition for mandamus and therefore it is obnoxious to demurrer.

It is assumed the only proofs offered to or considered by the trustees were those contained or referred to in these exhibits, and if these are insufficient the petition for mcmdamus is defective.

Attention is therefore directed to the affidavits of Duffy and Holmes attached to the petitions to the trustees, and it is argued that these affidavits fail to state that the signers of the petitions reside in said territory or that they are legal voters, and that they fail to state that the part of Union District No. 2, not taken, will con(a:n the number of families and the amount of property the law requires. Assuming this to be so we think there is nothing in the objection. The law does not require these affidavits to accompany the petition to the trustees. All that is necessary to set the trustees in motion is to present the petition signed by the requisite number of voters. Ho verification is required. The trustees must then ascertain whether the necessary conditions exist, and if so they must form the new district. The wish of the people so expressed and under the prescribed conditions, must be obeyed.

While the proper petition is essential, and the trustees may not move without it, no reason is perceived why it should be fatal to the proceedings that an affidavit which is unnecessarily appended to the petition fails to state all that must appear to warrant the formation of the new district. With regard to Union District Ho. 2, it is suggested by counsel for appellees that the court will take judicial notice of its boundaries and upon comparing them with the petition it will be found that it is all embraced in the proposed new district. It is enough, however, that the petition for mandamus does in terms aver that in the formation of the proposed new district, territory will not be taken from «any existing district so as to leave therein less than twenty families or 850,000 worth of property as assessed for taxation. This allegation is admitted by the demurrer to be true.

It is objected also that the boundaries of the districts as they now exist are not set out in the petition. Ho necessity for such averment is perceived. The form and boundaries of the several school districts are of course known to the trustees in fact, as they are presumed in law to be known to the public in general. The inquiry which the trustees are to make must, to a great extent, be of a summary nature and might be wholly met and answered by facts within their own personal knowledge. It would not aid them to insert such description in the petitions addressed to them nor do we see what assistance it would be to the court. The whole proceeding is statutory and upon comparing the petition with the statute we find no substantial defect.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.