Bonney v. King
| Decision Date | 18 February 1903 |
| Citation | 66 N.E. 377,201 Ill. 47 |
| Parties | BONNEY v. KING et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Action by Lawton C. Bonney against John King and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Court (103 Ill. App. 601) affirming a judgment sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's declaration, he appeals. Affirmed.
Lyman M. Paine, for appellant.
Musgrave, Vroman & Lee, for appellees.
The circuit court of Cook county sustained a demurrer presented by the appellees to a declaration filed against them by the appellant in an action on the case. The appellant elected to abide by his declaration, and judgment was entered dismissing the action at his cost. The Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the judgment, and the appellant has prosecuted this his further appeal to this court.
The material allegations of the declaration are that the appellant was the owner of 654 shares of the capital stock of the Chicago General Railway Company, of the value of $65,400, which stock was in the custody of one Orson Smith, for the use of the appellant; that the appellees conspired together to deprive appellant of such shares of stock, and in pursuance of such conspiracy said appellee King presented to appellant, and requested him to sign, a power of attorney, in which it was recited that whereas appellee Witbeck owned and controlled a large amount of bonds and stock of said Chicago General Railway Company, and it was contemplated and desired and believed to be for the interest of all parties that a controlling interest in the stock of said company should be held in a lump, and desirable to that end that said Witbeck should be empowered to transfer a controlling interest in said bonds and stock, the said Witbeck be given power and authority to transfer the stock held by the parties signing the same, and should be required to account to the owners of the stock, as set out in the further provisions of the power of attorney; that appellant refused to sign said power of attorney, and that, therefore, said appellees did conspire together with the fraudulent, willful, unlawful, and malicious intent and purpose wrongfully and wickedly to injure the person, credit, character, business, employment, and property of plaintiff, and to hinder and prevent the construction, maintenance, and operation of the railway aforesaid, and with the fraudulent, willful, unlawful, and malicious intent and purpose wrongfully and wickedly to acquire the said shares of stock of said plaintiff, and to coerce said plaintiff into signing said power of attorney, and so to acquire said interest of said plaintiff in said railway company; that, in pursuance of said conspiracy with said King, said Witbeck, on different days and dates, instituted in the circuit court of Cook county four certain actions in assumpsit; that in three of said actions it was sought to recover on certain notes which the plaintiff had executed and delivered to the payees, which said notes said Witbeck, as an official of said Chicago General Railway Company, had paid and discharged out of the funds of said railway company, and that in the fourth of said actions in assumpsit it was sought to recover upon a pretended note for $121,702.18, which included the amounts of the three several notes sought to be recovered upon in the other assumpsit suits; that said Witbeck, in the further pursuance of said alleged conspiracy, began an action in replevin against said Orson Smith, based upon an affidavit filed by said Witbeck, in which the affiant claimed to be the owner of the shares of stock in said railway company which said Smith, as before alleged, held for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven
...Torts (6th Ed.1989) § 120.11 See, e.g., Schenck v. Minolta Office Systems, Inc., 802 P.2d 1131 (Colo.App.1990); Bonney v. King, 201 Ill. 47, 50, 66 N.E. 377 (1903); Withall v. Capitol Federal Savings of America, 164 Ill.App.3d 851, 855-56, 115 Ill.Dec. 803, 518 N.E.2d 328 (1987), cert. deni......
-
Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology Intern.
...of some underlying tort (see Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd., 164 Ill.2d 54, 63, 206 Ill.Dec. 636, 645 N.E.2d 888 (1994); Bonney v. King, 201 Ill. 47, 50, 66 N.E. 377 (1903)), the viability of plaintiff's complaint in this case turns upon whether plaintiff has alleged enough facts to satisfy the ......
-
Arora v. Chui
...v. Kavanagh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick, 50 Ill.App.3d 1033, 1038, 8 Ill.Dec. 805, 365 N.E.2d 1191 (1977). In Bonney v. King, 201 Ill. 47, 66 N.E. 377 (1903), the plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution action against the defendants, alleging that the defendants brought four meritle......
-
Sherrod v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.
...Inc., D.C.Ill. (1969), 295 F.Supp. 1155, 11607; Schwartz v. Schwartz (1937), 366 Ill. 247, 250(1), 8 N.E.2d 668; Bonney v. King (1903), 201 Ill. 47, 50(2), 66 N.E. 377; McBean v. Ritchie (1856), 18 Ill. 114; Kay v. Boehm, C.A.Ill. (1975), 32 Ill.App.3d 853, 856(2), 336 N.E.2d 781; Elfgen v.......