Chicago Ry. Equip. Co. v. Nat'l Hollow Brake-Beam Co.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1909
• Citation: 239 Ill. 111,87 N.E. 872
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO RY. EQUIPMENT CO. v. NATIONAL HOLLOW BRAKE-BEAM CO. et al.

239 Ill. 111

87 N.E. 872

CHICAGO RY. EQUIPMENT CO.

v.NATIONAL HOLLOW BRAKE-BEAM CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 19, 1909.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1909.

Appeal from Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; George A. Dupuy, Judge.

Bill by the Chicago Railway Equipment Company against the National Hollow Brake-Beam Company and others. From a decree of the Branch Appellate Court for the First district affirming a decree of the superior court, defendants appeal. Judgment of Appellate Court affirmed.

For former report, see 141 Ill. App. 572.

Defrees, Buckingham, Ritter & Campbell and Randolph Laughlin, for appellants.

H. H. C. Miller and W. S. Oppenheim, for appellee.

VICKERS, J.

This case is before this court for the second time. Our opinion on the former hearing was filed February 21, 1907, and is reported as National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Chicago Railway Equipment Co., 226 Ill. 28, 80 N. E. 556. The facts are set out in the statement preceding the opinion of this court on the former hearing, and it will not be necessary to restate them in detail. The National Hollow Brake-Beam Company for the sake of brevity will hereinafter be called the ‘beam company’ and the Chicago Railway Equipment Company will be called the ‘equipment company.’

The beam company leased its manufacturing plant to the equipment company for a period of 15 years, commencing January 1, 1893, for a rental of $65,000 per annum. On December 18, 1901, the beam company served notice on the equipment company of an intention to declare a forfeiture of the lease for certain defaults in respect to the payment of rents. On the 21st of March, 1902, the equipment company filed this bill for the purpose of enjoining the beam company from declaring a forfeiture and from repossessing itself of the leased premises. The beam company answered the bill, and upon the final hearing the circuit court found, upon an accounting, that the equipment company was in arrears for rent $19,624.50, and entered a decree that upon payment of that amount to the clerk of the court within 10 days the temporary injunction theretoforeissued would be made perpetual, and if the equipment company failed to make such payment the injunction should stand dissolved. The equipment company prayed and obtained an appeal to the Appellate Court, and filed a good and sufficient appeal bond in the sum of $30,000 before the expiration of the 10 days fixed by the decree for the payment of the money. Upon an appeal to the Appellate Court that part of the decree requiring the payment of $19.624.50 as a condition upon which the injunction would be continued was reversed, and the injunction was made perpetual unconditionally. The beam company appealed from the judgment of the Appellate Court to this court, and this court, in effect, reversed the Appellate Court and affirmed the circuit court, although the final order did not express this result in the usual terms.

In summing up the conclusions of this court on the former hearing, on page 39 of 226 Ill.,page 560 of 80 N. E., it was said: ‘After an investigation of the record, we think these findings of the master and chancellor are correct conclusions to be drawn from the proofs. Neither knowledge nor acquiescence on the part of the brake-beam company of the alleged transfer to it of the worthless ‘three items' in payment, in part, of the obligation of the equipment company, being proven, no estoppel to repudiate the same could arise, hence we conclude that the decree of the chancellor was correct and should have been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The judgment of the Appellate Court is therefore reversed, and the cause will be remanded to the superior court with directions to enter a decree finding there is due to the brakebeam company from the equipment company the sum of $19,624.50, together with interest on that amount at 5 per cent. per annum from the date of the former decree rendered in that court, and decreeing the payment thereof within 30 days, and that in default the injunction be dissolved. The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed, and the cause remanded to the superior court, with directions.’

The only difference in the decree directed to be entered by this court and the original decree of the circuit court is that the time within which the payment was to be made was changed by our direction from 10 days to 30 days. Upon the reinstatement of the cause in the circuit court, that court rendered a decree, which, after reciting the proceedings in the case to that date, proceeds as follows: ‘That the decree of this court entered July 29, 1904, be and is modified, in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, as follows: That there is due from the complainant,...