Case ID: ill-app_208/html/0201-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dever", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick W. Restorick, Appellee, v. John W. Restorick, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,079.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Evidence, § 128
      
      —when secondary evidence of contents of letters in possession of nonresident improper. In attachment proceedings by an heir of an estate to recover from his brother, another heir, a certain sum of money alleged to be due in addition to the money received for a cottage as part of Ms share; where plaintiff's case was based upon an ambiguous letter from defendant stating that he had made a settlement of the estate with a certain person and that he had a cottage for plaintiff and “some money, about 150 pounds,” that the cottage was valued at 110 pounds, and he wanted plaintiff to let him know what to do about the house and he would send him a “check for the lot,” and the testimony of defendant, who was serving in the British army, was taken by deposition, field that it was improper to admit secondary evidence of the two letters sent by plaintiff in answer to defendant’s letter until a notice to produce such letters had been served on defendant and he had been allowed a chance to explain the ambiguities in such letter.
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Stelk, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed November 5, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Attachment proceedings by Frederick W. Restorick, plaintiff, against John W. Restorick, defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $882.25, defendant appeals.
    Teller, Hart & Pennish, for appellant.
    Mark D. Goodman and Blum & Blum, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and ¿section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court