Case ID: ill-app_211/html/0272-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McDonald", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. C. Foster, Appellant, v. Eugenie Graf, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 23,471.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Evidence, § 472
      
       — what degree of proof necessary where cause of action is founded on crime. Where a cause of action is based upon a crime, the degree of proof applicable to a criminal prosecution, i. e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to sustain the verdict.
    2. Assumpsit, Action oe, § 89* — when reasonable doubt as to guilt of servant of forgery exists. In an action to recover the proceeds of certain checks which plaintiff claimed that his servant cashed and appropriated without authority, where there was evidence of admissions by plaintiff that the servant had authority to indorse checks generally, and the prosecution of a forgery indictment was abandoned and the servant subsequently sentenced on a plea of guilty to a charge of embezzlement, there was a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the servant of the crime of forgery so as not to render defendant, who had cashed the checks for the servant, liable for the proceeds.
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry Olson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1918.
    Rehearing denied May 24, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by R. C. Foster, plaintiff, against Eugenie Graf, defendant, to recover the proceeds of certain checks. From a judgment of nil capiat, plaintiff appeals.
    Defress, Buckingham & Eaton and James C. Wood-bury, for appellant; Don Kenneth Jones, of counsel.
    M. M. Jacobs, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.