Hartley v. Chicago & A.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1905
• Citation: 73 N.E. 398,214 Ill. 78
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: HARTLEY v. CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

214 Ill. 78

73 N.E. 398

HARTLEY

v.CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1905.

Error to Appellate Court, First District.

Action by James Hartley against the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company. A judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

James C. McShane, for plaintiff in error.

Winston, Payne & Strawn (F. S. Winston and Ralph M. Shaw, of counsel), for defendant in error.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The record of a judgment for costs recovered in the superior court of Cook county by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, and affirmed by the Branch Appellate Court for the First District, was brought before us on a former occasion, when the judgments were reversed, and the cause was remanded to the superior court for another trial. The history of the case up to that time will be found in the opinion then filed. 96 Ill. App. 227;Hartley v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 197 Ill. 440, 64 N. E. 382. The error for which the judgment was reversed was the refusal of the trial court to submit the issues to the jury. The cause was reinstated in the superior court, and was again tried upon the same pleadings as before. At the close of the evidence the court again directed a verdict of not guilty, which was returned, and judgment was entered thereon. The Branch Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the judgment, and the record is again brought up by writ of error under a certificate of importance.

The bill of exceptions recites that plaintiff introduced evidence to sustain his declaration, and defendant introduced evidence in opposition thereto, but the evidence is not preserved, except so far as it relates to a release of the cause of action. The court certified that, aside from the release, the evidence was of such a character as required the submission of the issue to the jury, and the direction of the court was based upon the ground that the cause of action was barred by the release.

It is first contended that our decision on the former record that the evidence therein contained entitled the plaintiff to have the issue submitted to a jury is conclusive on that question when again presented upon this record. The principles of law declared in the former opinion were binding upon the trial court upon the last trial, but the question whether that court was right in directing a verdict depends upon the evidence then before the court, upon which the ruling was based. Whether the action of the court in directing a verdict was right or wrong depends upon the validity of the release, and we cannot look outside of this record to determine that question. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Lee, 87 Ill. 454. The plaintiff, on his cross-examination, admitted that he signed the release, and the defendant afterward offered it in evidence. It was on a printed form, with the words ‘Release of all claims' in capital letters and large type at the head, and beginning with the words ‘For all claims,’ in the same type, so that no person able to read could fail to see them in looking at the paper. It was under seal, and, unless successfully impeached, was a release of the cause of action. The plaintiff, being called in rebuttal, testified that he was 28 years old at the time of the accident; that he could read and write; that he did not read the paper before it was signed; that the general manager and attorney of the road were present when he signed it; that the attorney read it off fast in a mumbly kind of way, and he did not understand it very well, and that he remembered about the amount of $280 that he was to get, and that was about all he remembered. He was then asked whether, at the time he signed the paper, he knew in any way he was settling with the company for the injury. An objection to that question was sustained, and his attorney then made the following offer of proof: ‘I offer to show that this man Hartley went down to Col. Wood's office at the direction of this superintendent. He told the superintendent who he was, and he came down there for wages; not the superintendent-the general manager, Wood-and Wood and he then talked about this. He explained how the accident happened, and all about it, and Wood told him he didn't have any case...