Lyons v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 31 October 1882
• Citation: 12 Bradw. 531,12 Ill.App. 531
• Parties: ROBERT L. LYONS ET AL.v.EMMA J LAWRENCE.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

12 Ill.App. 531

12 Bradw. 531

ROBERT L. LYONS ET AL.

v.EMMA J LAWRENCE.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

October Term, 1882.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. THOMAS A. MORAN, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed January 30, 1883.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court in two cases, which, by stipulation of the parties, were consolidated and tried together as a single suit, one being an action of replevin originally commenced before a justice of the peace and taken by appeal to the circuit court; the other, a citation proceeding instituted by appellants in the probate court, and also appealed to the circuit court. The cases involved the ownership of certain articles of personal property, consisting of office furniture, books, etc., formerly belonging to one E. S. Smith, of whose estate appellants were appointed administrator and administratrix, and as such claimed the property. Appellee claimed title under an alleged bill of sale from Smith and herself to one Woodruff, and a subsequent purchase by her from the latter.

It appears that after the death of Smith and appellee's purchase from Woodruff, she brought her bill in chancery against appellants, praying for the sale of the property under an alleged pledge of the same to her by Smith in his lifetime, and that upon a final hearing upon the merits, the bill was dismissed for want of equity. The dismissal of this bill was set up and relied upon by appellants in the court below as a bar to this suit.

It further appears that appellants offered evidence tending to show that appellee had attempted to bribe certain witnesses to testify in her behalf, but the court rejected the evidence, which ruling was duly excepted to.

It also appears that during the closing argument of plaintiff's counsel to the jury, she procured and offered to the jury refreshments in the presence of the court.

The jury found the title to the property in both suits to be in appellee, and that she was entitled to the possession of the same. The court overruled the defendant's motion for a new trial and rendered judgment for appellee. Appellants bring the case here for review, and assign errors covering the various points arising upon the record.

Mr. PLINY N. HASKELL, for appellants; that the bill in chancery to foreclose the pledge, is an estoppel to the present suit, cited Ruegger v. I. & St. L. R. R. Co. 103 Ill. 449.

As to res adjudicata: Hamilton v. Quimby, 46 Ill. 90; Rogers v. Higgins, 57 Ill. 244; Kelly v. Donlin, 70 Ill. 378; Garrick v. Chamberlain, 97 Ill. 620; Ind. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Vance, 6 Otto, 450; Briscoe v. Lloyd, 64 Ill. 33.

It was error to refuse to admit evidence of an attempt of appellee to suborn witnesses: Morgan v. Frees, 15 Bar. 352; C. C. R'y Co. v. McMahon, 103 Ill. 485; 2 Phillips on Evidence, 899, 961.

It is good ground for reversal that appellee endeavored to improperly influence the jury by offering them a lunch in court: Commonweath v. Roby, 12 Pick. 519; Knight v. Freeport, 13 Mass. 218; Ryan v. Harrow, 27 Ia. 500.

A judgment for costs should never be rendered against an administrator or executor personally when he sues in his representative capacity: Church v. Jewett, 1 Scam. 50; Bailey v. Campbell, 1 Scam. 110; Hunter v. Bilyeu, 39 Ill. 367.

Where objection to introduction of evidence was not made in court below, it is too late to raise it here: Sargeant v. Kellogg, 5 Gilm. 213; K. & Ill. River R. R. Co. v. Chester, 62 Ill. 235; Allen v. Nichols, 68 Ill. 250.

Mr. W. B. SCATES, for appellee; that such matters only as have been examined and passed upon become res adjudicata, cited Gray v. Gillilan, 15 Ill. 453; Lloyd v. Lee, 45 Ill. 277; Packet Co. v. Sickles, 5 Wallace, 592; Holcomb v. Phelps, 16 Conn. 131; Johnson...