Shedd v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 07 April 1922
• Docket Number: No. 14376.,14376.
• Citation: 302 Ill. 355,134 N.E. 705
• Parties: SHEDD v. PATTERSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

302 Ill. 355

134 N.E. 705

SHEDD

v.PATTERSON.

No. 14376.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 22, 1922.

Rehearing Denied April 7, 1922.

Action by Edward A. Shedd against John C. Patterson in trespass on the case for malicious prosecution of five equity suits and four law actions. Directed verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed, and defendant gave bond to release the attachment. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, and granted a certificate of importance and an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Reversed and remanded.

Farmer and Dunn, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from First Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Thomas G. Windes, Judge.

Oliver & Mecartney, of Chicago, for appellant.

John C. Patterson and F. J. Karasek, both of Chicago (W. D. Elmer, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

On August 1, 1919, the appellant, Edward A. Shedd, brought his action of trespass on the case in the circuit court of Cook county against the appellee, John C. Patterson, for malicious prosecution of five suits in equity and four actions at law, seeking relief in equity or damages in the actions at law, and all relating to the same subject-matter. An attachment in aid was sued out and levied on a lot in Riverside, Ill., and the defendant's share of the rents of property in Chicago leased to Shedd and involved in all the suits was garnished. Issues were formed, and upon a trial by jury there was a verdict, by direction of the court, for the defendant as to the issues in attachment, and a verdict of not guilty under conflicting instructions, some of which directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and others submitted the issues to the jury. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District, and the defendant gave a bond to release the attachment, which was dissolved, and the funds garnished released. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, and granted a certificate of importance and an appeal to this court.

The following facts appeared on the trial and were not disputed: On May 1, 1893, the trustees for four persons owning the fee in a parcel of land at the northwest corner of State and Washington streets, in Chicago, executed a lease to Herman H. Kohlsaat for a term of 102 years and Kohlsaat erected a 12-story building on the premises. In 1897 the defendant, John C. Patterson, acquired a one-twelfth interest in the fee, and on December 20, 1897, the owners of the fee conveyed the real estate in trust to the Northern Trust Company, subject to the leasehold estate. In 1900 the trustee, the Northern Trust Company, John C. Patterson, and other beneficiaries, began a suit for strict foreclosure of the leasehold estate for unpaid installments of rent. There was a decree on June 25, 1902, and on January 30, 1905, the plaintiff, Edward A. Shedd, and Albert M. Johnson, became the owners of the leasehold estate, and on February 21, 1905, were permitted to redeem it by paying all money due under the decree of foreclosure, together with interest and costs, and by order of court were restored to the possession of the leasehold estate. The defendant then instituted a series of proceedings attacking the leasehold estate, the first of which was a motion to set aside the order for possession, and this was followed with cross-bills in two cases in which the trustee filed bills for instructions, and with bills filed by the defendant attacking the foreclosure proceeding and order of possession, and claiming that the leasehold estate had been forfeited. The defendant made Shedd and Johnson defendants to a writ of error sued out from the Appellate Court, after they had acquired the leasehold estate in the case in which they had not been parties in the trial court. On May 25, 1908, Johnson deeded his interest in the leasehold estate to the plaintiff, Shedd, and after that the litigation concerning the leasehold estate was against Shedd. In every case the decisions in the trial court, the Appellate Court, and this court were against every claim made by the defendant. It is not necessary or desirable to detail the proceedings and decisions, but they will be found by reference to the cases in this court. Patterson v. Northern Trust Co., 230 Ill. 334, 82 N. E. 837, and 231 Ill. 22, 82 N. E. 840,121 Am. St. Rep. 299;People v. Shedd, 241 Ill. 155, 89 N. E. 332;Shedd v. People, 217 U. S. 597, 30 Sup. Ct. 696, 54 L. Ed. 896;Johnson v. Northern Trust Co., 265 Ill. 263, 106 N. E. 814;Patterson v. Northern Trust Co., 286 Ill. 564, 122 N. E. 55.

The superior court of Cook county finally enjoined prosecution of further suits by the defendant against the Northern Trust Company for the destruction of the leasehold estate, and a bill was filed in violation of the injunction. The court dismissed the bill and by its decree found that the bill was vexatious, and a clear and palpable abuse of the process and offices of the court concerning matters finally adjudicated by the final decrees of the courts. The defendant appealed, and the Appellate Court affirmed the decree, on the ground that the court was justified in exercising its inherent power to protect itself and the defendants against a multiplicity of actions, and harassing and vexatious litigation, by persisting in treating decisions of the courts as a mere nullity. Patterson v. Northern Trust Co., 207 Ill. App. 355. The defendant appealed to this court, and the judgment of the Appellate Court was affirmed, and the power of a court to protect itself by the summary remedy of dismissing a suit was upheld. Patterson v. Northern Trust Co., 286 Ill. 564, 122 N. E. 55. On November 12, 1906, the defendant commenced an action on the case against Shedd and others for damages in the sum of $500,000. On August 28, 1912, he began another suit alleging damages in the same amount. On April 5, 1918, he brought a similar suit for damages in the sum of $1,000,000, and on June 6, 1918, brought another suit for damages in the sum of $500,000, all of which were dismised.

[1][2] The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment in this case, on the ground that a suit for malicious prosecution cannot be maintained where the action upon which it is granted is an ordinary civil action begun by summons only, and not accompanied by arrest of the person or seizure of his property or special injury not necessarily resulting in all suits prosecuted for like causes of action. The court understood that the decisions in Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co., 175 Ill. 619, 51 N. E. 569,67 Am. St. Rep. 242; and Norin v. Scheldt Manf. Co., 297 Ill. 521, 130 N. E. 791,which announced that doctrine, applied to this case. That conclusion was not correct. In Smith v. Michigan Buggy Co., supra, the action was for damages for the prosecution of a suit against Smith, a traveling salesman, to recover damages for fraudulent representations made by Smith to obtain employment. The court recognized...