will you please call the first respectfully i think this is a case of first impression under illinois law well it's not of course a case of first impression in the united states we have cited to the courts are three reviewing court decisions run from the supreme court of ohio one from the fifth circuit court of appeals and one from me in the end of tell the court which i believe provides the rule of decision in this case this is a good girl minuscule question about the first case trial counsel had i been a trial counsel i would have made a motion for j and all the but it wasn't done and i need to look you in the eye and tell you that resin time the reason it wasn't done in my opinion was that the counsel for the plaintiffs who tried the case was of the opinion that it was not necessary because of the secondary basis for applying partnership rules in order to get to the prognosis individually and that's also the reason he didn't file a police trial that is correct i understand sir i wasn't clear i mean it's a lame excuse to say well i wasn't trial counsel and therefore i don't know the answer to the in the illinois uniform partnership it provides two methods for which is to impose personal liability upon partners ronnie's just the simple way that cited i would call them a contract cases respectfully not toward cases the reason that they were permitted to make the second challenge and impose personal liability was there was no and that is exactly what they're put in the fifth circuit court of appeals case mr becker yes ma'am you mentioned that this is this is akin to a second bite at the apple i would ask for some applications on that the underlying case rather because in the underlying case there was no claim on made against the individual partners for their personal or individual right ability it was  made and the jury specifically found that this was a partnership obligation and just as in the three cases that i have cited here there was no claim made that in fayette the for entering into a contract with the plaintiff personally it was the partnership that entered into the contract with the plaintiff and they were properly found not liable in their individual capacity  to reverse was you did not start taking a judgment against the partners in this ruling and therefore you could not issue a process and you could not enforce a judgment i would lessen until that event i just don't find that there's any parallel in that case that he has cited to the case of bar it just doesn't it's not informative it doesn't deal with the issues here the the  individuals not having been sued personally were found not guilty that is the perfect paradigm for those three cases that we have cited to the court and respectfully if they are not identical twins they are definitely we get to appear before the appellate courts on a case that comes before the court of the motion thank you very much for scheduling all arguments we do like to see the judges in person and hopefully they like to see us a collect on the partnership judgment now of course not that's ridiculous your honor asked by the big if you received a judgment against the distributors i was sued the verdict would have been for the transaction and that's what was decided in the first he so it seems to me with the plaintiff was doing in the first case was i don't know who's responsible for this driver under the theory respond y the individual independent of the partnership or as doing business as a partnership it's now all that together and the second special in tragi tory that was posited simply says if you believe that a judgement against the individual in relation to the partnership you know it well as i read you suing the two gentlemen doing business yes the partnership in the special bird of form i think and the verdict form found the partnership employed the driver and her her ship was responsible for the drivers so it wasn't a question of does either one of these two partners responsible for the obligation are secondary liability to the obligation of our ship which is the question in this lawsuit is is the the church i would respectfully say that if that were the case then why was debian need to he have a count three anyway he could have sued the partnership in the firm name alone and he could issue the individual in the  can the judgment creditor go against an individual partner for the application financial obligation of the partnership for which he was a member  secondary liability i understand the judge but i believe that because he was named in the first suit in relation to the partnership that that should have he should not bestir to cut it would apply to that situation where he was named in the first suit in two ways one was not in relationship partnership wrecked yes or indeed was found not liable without connection to the partnership  second way he was named was as a partner doing business as a partnership and that our liability was found against the partnership of which he was a part and yet the verdict form talks about what you did what is necessary to see how this five the judgement up the against the partnership against the individual partner and it requires two things first the recipe of judgment against the partner and secondly there has to be one of those conditions  partnership in the firm name does not fire an action to enforce the reliability of any partner but it doesn't require it doesn't specify the timing for it and in fact we know that in four eleven end it says the partnership again can be sued in the name of the partnership the firm name i mean the partners doing business with the firm name or both so that seems to imply that it is possible to sue the partner the individual establish individual partner's liability for the  court there was trying to define what the word action meant because as counsel in the indicated the play tip attempted to collect on the of the judgment in a supplementary proceeding and the court the the key fact to the to be considered of why the partner needs to be actually sued in a action is that yes the on notice that he's going to be on right is he's going to be liable for the partnership obligations and that kind of also with the case of river park that was cited in my brief which actually discusses a rescue to kata and it was struck up a transaction test and said one of the factors in the transaction test is the expectations of the parties as to their liability that they're not going to be sued a second time i think that in this case where you hear the appellee being sued doing business say as the partnership where the allegations of the complaint is that he employed chavez and he owned the truck doing business is the partnership it was his expectation reasonable expectation that he was being held liable for the obligations of the partnership and so that's another reason the first lawsuit expended his efforts and his attorneys fees and everything else to defend himself in that suit he was found not liable and now he's being turned around soon again after a supplementary proceeding against both brothers doing business is a partnership life i'm not arguing that is inconsistent judging what i'm arguing is they are the liability of the partner and in relation to the progress ship was alleged in the complaint and was part of the first lawsuit and it wasn't differentiated on the verdict form it didn't say do you find take a better gonzales not liable or liable as independent of the probably ship or in here in the complaint it allege that the trucking count three was alternatively owned by the partnership so there is a mixing of the partnership and the individual liability even in the special individual partners were not personally liable but the partnership was beginning the story respectfully end of story one of the questions story issues my able opponent has brought to the court state both medicines approving individual liability have been foreclosed bet respectfully is how he in the end like court answered that question that is exactly on the fifth circuit court of appeals answered that question and partner that's what we have before the court and that is also implicit in these same teresa hospital case and i believe this applies the rule of decision i have nothing further to say thank you very much thank