Janci v. Cerny
Decision Date | 03 April 1919 |
Docket Number | No. 12409.,12409. |
Citation | 122 N.E. 507,287 Ill. 359 |
Parties | JANCI et al. v. CERNY. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Frederick A. Smith, Judge.
Bill by Martin Janci and another against Steve Cerny and another. Decree for complainants, affirmed by Appellate Court on appeal by defendant named, and defendant named brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Sinden, Hassell & Osusky, of Chicago (John H. McAuliffe, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Max Luster, of Chicago, for defendants in error.
Martin Janci and Stefan Palansky brought suit in the circuit court of Cook county against Steve Cerny and John Cerny for the settlement of their partnership accounts. The bill alleged the formation of a partnership by the complainants and the defendants for the business of wool-pulling, and that Steve Cerny had wrongfully used the funds of the partnership in speculative ventures in wool with John Svatik, without the knowledge or consent of the complainants; that such speculation was not included in the purpose for which the partnership was formed, was not a part of the business of the partnership, and was entirely disconnected with its proper purposes, but that it was profitable, and resulted in profits in excess of $5,000, for which Steve Cerny should account to the partnership. Steve Cerny answered the bill, denying most of the material allegations, among them the allegation of the formation of the partnership, and averred that the complainants and the defendants entered into an agreement to purchase one lot of material for the production of wool, which was purchased with money contributed by the respective parties; that it was agreed that the material was to be worked into a finished product and a merchantable condition, and the profits, if any, were to be divided equally among the four parties, and each party was to receive back the money which he had contributed; that material was purchased, placed in a merchantable condition, and sold at a profit, and that after the sale the defendant Steve Cerny accounted to each of the parties and paid to them the amount found due in full satisfaction and accord of the transaction, and that this transaction is the only one which he had with the parties to the suit; that he did not use the money or property of the joint enterprise for any other purpose than that for which it was contributed; and that his transactions with John Svatik were separate and distinct from any transaction in which the complainants are in any way involved. The cause was referred to a master, whose findings were in favor of the complainants. A decree was entered in favor of the complainants, from which the defendant Steve Cerny appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District, where the judgment was affirmed, and a writ of certiorari was awarded to bring up the record for review.
The material facts, as shown by the evidence and found by the court, are that about August 1, 1916, the parties formed a partnership for the purpose of buying skins and removing the wool from them, and afterwards selling the wool and skins, and using the proceeds for further operations of the same kind for the benefit of the partnership; that it was agreed that each of the partners should contribute to the partnership as much money as he could; that Steve Cerny should have charge of the business, and the wool should stand in his name, and the profits or losses should be divided equally among the partners, without regard to the amounts they had contributed; that Steve and John Cerny should begin working for the partnership and receive the usual wages for their work, but that Janci should continue working in the machine shop where he was employed, Steve Cerny being skilled in the work, and Palansky and John Cerny having previously worked at pulling wool, but Janci having no experience in such work. Janci contributed $1,050, Palansky $500, John Cerny $500, and Steve Cerny $51.77 to the funds of the partnership; that Steve Cerny, action for the partnership, purchased a lot of lambskins from Stefan Makys, of the purchase price for which, after certain credits for the return of the skins after pulling the wool from them and for certain work for Makys, there remained due a balance of $2,101.77, which was paid with the partnership funds. Steve Cerny, Palansky, and John Cerny, together with the other workmen, completed the removing of the wool from the skins in five or six days, and the wool was then deposited with the National Wool Company, and warehouse receipts were issued for it to Steve Cerny. While the Cernys and Palansky were working on the skins, John Svatik engaged Steve Cerny as a foreman or superintendent for him in the woolpulling business, and agreed to give him a share of the profits in addition to the usual wages on the work. Steve Cerny's partners were not parties to this arrangement, and he said nothing to Janci about it, but said to Palansky that they would go to work for Svatik, because he promised Cerny a percentage. Steve Cerny, Palansky, and John Cerny worked for Svatik for about two months, and received the usual wages for the work done by them, and after the arrangement with Svatik, Steve Cerny paid no further attention to the partnership until the wool belonging to the partnership until sold in the following December. Two or three weeks after making the arrangement with Svatik, Steve Cerny turned over to Svatik $1,300 furnished by John Cerny, which was used by Svatik in his business and was afterwards returned to Steve Cerny without the payment of any interest or compensation for its use, and about August 14, 1916, Steve Cerny delivered to Svatik the warehouse receipts for the wool belonging to the partnership, which Svatik pledged to secure a loan of about $2,000 made to him by the Security Bank of Chicago; the warehouse receipts remaining so pledged until the wool for which they were issued was sold. The wool belonging to the partnership was sold on December 8, 1916, at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Golden v. McDermott, Will & Emery
...owe one another a duty of full disclosure of material facts when making a settlement and obtaining a release. Janci v. Cerny, 287 Ill. 359, 365-66, 122 N.E. 507, 509 (1919). MWE contends that it did not breach a fiduciary duty to Golden in negotiations, because the partnership with Golden h......
-
Smyth v. Kaspar Am. State Bank
...that payment by a debtor of a lesser sum as a compromise of a disputed claim may be deemed proper consideration. Janci v. Cerny, 287 Ill. 359, 122 N.E. 507; Greenberg v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 379 Ill. 421, 41 N.E.2d 495; 6 Corbin, Contracts, § 1289. However, in the instant case the 15......
-
Roman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
...Alco-Deree Co., 216 F.Supp. 258, 261-62 (N.D.Ill.1963); In re Cunningham's Estate, 311 Ill. 311, 142 N.E. 740 (1924); Janci v. Cerny, 287 Ill. 359, 122 N.E. 507 (1919). The failure to know of, or to understand, the condition of payment will not operate to prevent an acceptance of money tend......
-
Smyth v. Kaspar Am. State Bank
...constituted an accord and satisfaction. Greenberg v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 379 Ill. 421, 423, 41 N.E.2d 495; Janci v. Cerny, 287 Ill. 359, 366, 122 N.E. 507; Snow v. Griesheimer, 220 Ill. 106, 109-110, 77 N.E. 110; South Side Coal Co. v. Gross, 157 Ill.App. 218, As to persons in Group......