Lasher v. Littell
| Decision Date | 24 April 1903 |
| Citation | 67 N.E. 372,202 Ill. 551 |
| Parties | LASHER v. LITTELL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Action by Carter L. Littell against Charles W. Lasher. From a judgments of the Branch Appellate Court (104 Ill. App. 211) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Ulysses G. Hayden, for appellant.
H. G. Colson and Avery R. Hayes, for appellee.
This was an action on the case, brought by the appellee in the circuit court of Cook county against the appellant and G. Lasher, Francis W. Savage, and John Johnson for malicious prosecution. The case was subsequently dismissed as to G. Lasher and Francis W. Savage, and John Johnson was not served with process. The appellant filed the general issue, and a trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment against the appellant for $1,500, which has been affirmed by the Branch Appellate Court for the First District, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.
The evidence introduced on behalf of the appellee showed that he was a resident of Washington, in the state of Indiana, where he had been engaged in the mercantile business for a number of years, in company with his son; that previous to his arrest his firm has shipped to G. Lasher & Son, a commission firm in Chicago of which the appellant was a member, four car loads of melons, which were sold and the proceeds accounted for. Subsequently his firm shipped to G. Lasher & Son four other cars of melons for sale, accompanied by drafts with bills of lading attached. After the melons were received, G. Lasher & Son notified the firm of appellee that they must ship two more car loads of melons without drafts, or the drafts for the four car loads then on track in Chicago would not be paid. The appellee went to Chicago and called at the place of business of appellant, where he was informed the drafts would be paid on the following morning. At the time agreed upon he went to the bank where the drafts were to be paid, waited for some time, and no one appearing from the office of G. Lasher & Son, and being informed by the bank that two of the drafts had been paid, he took up the bills of lading for the remaining cars, went to the railroad yards, and sold the melons in the cars on track. John Johnson and Francis W. Savage were in the employ of G. Lasher & Son—Johnson as bookkeeper and Savage as salesman. After the melons had been sold by the appellee, Savage presented to him a bill for $8.98 for commissions, in the name of G. Lasher & Son. Upon the appellee refusing to pay the bill, Savage said to him he would regret it. On the next day the appellee was arrested upon a warrant sworn out before one of the justices of the peace of Cook county by John Johnson, charging him with having violated an ordinance of the city of Chicago by selling two carloads of Melons in the city without a license. He was taken before the justice, and, being a stranger in the city and unable to give bail, was incarcerated in a cell at the Harrison street station, where he remained for some hours, and until he could give bail. He afterwards obtained bail and was released. He appeared before the justice on the next morning, when the hearing of the case was continued until the following day, at which time he appeared, and upon a hearing was discharged by the justice. The appellant was present at the hearing before the justice, and stated to the attorney of appellee, on being asked why he was making the appellee trouble, ‘Let him settel with me,’ and, upon said attorney stating that he could not get the appellee fined, he said, ‘We will see whether we will or not.’ The appellee admitted upon the trial of this case the sale of two car loads of melons upon track in the city of Chicago, but it did not appear that it was unlawful to make such sales in the city without a license. No ordinance prohibiting such sales without a license in the city was introduced in evidence.
Appellant introduced no evidence, but at the close of appellee's evidence moved the court to instruct the jury to find for the defendant, which the court declined to do.
HAND, J. (after stating the facts).
It is first contended that the court erred in declining to take the case from the jury. The evidence fairly tended to show want of probable cause for the arrest, and malice, and the court did not err in submitting the case to the jury.
It is next contended that the appellee having averred in the declaration that the appellant conspired, etc., with G. Lasher, Francis W. Savage, and John Johnson, he must recover judgment against two or more of the defendants or none. The unlawful acts done in pursuance of a conspiracy, and not the fact of the conspiracy, are the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin Union, No. 4 v. People
...conspirator then becomes liable for all the acts of his co-conspirators done in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy. In Lasher v. Littell, 202 Ill. 551 on page 555, 67 N. E. 372 on page 373, the court said: ‘The conspiracy being established, everything said, written, or done by eit......
-
People v. Small
...act and declaration of all the members and is therefore original evidence against each of them. People v. Lloyd, supra; Lasher v. Littell, 202 Ill. 551, 67 N. E. 372; 2 Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 1079; 2 Jones' Com. on Evidence, § 254. [13] Saturday, April 21, 1917, Small ordered the cl......
-
Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd.
...some act in furtherance of the agreement, which is itself a tort. (W. Prosser, Torts § 46, at 293 (4th ed. 1971); see Lasher v. Littell (1903), 202 Ill. 551, 67 N.E. 372; Illinois Traffic Court Driver Improvement Educational Foundation v. Peoria Journal Star, Inc. (1986), 144 Ill.App.3d 555......
-
Linquist v. Hodges
...defendants; the rule in this regard being different in actions of tort from what it is in actions upon contract. In Lasher v. Littell, 202 Ill. 551, 555, 67 N. E. 372, 373, Littell sued G. Lasher, Francis Savage, and John Johnson, jointly with the appellant, for malicious prosecution. The c......