The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1850-08-10
Suprerne CONT.

Ciers OF the third division. shall hereafter, in ma
king up the docket, place all Of the cases from
each county .ogether-the counties 70 DC arraug-
ed IN the following order:
Cook, Lake, VIII Iroquojs Grundy, DupsS,,
NcAeury Boone. Wiuaebacu Stephenson. 10 Ia
,iess, Carroll, OI,c Lee, Whnesiae, Henry. Mcr-
GER Rock leland Henderson. Warren Knox. Stark
Peoria, Marshall, Putnam, Bureau, Ta1rwel
Woodfard Mclean, Ly.ugs;os IA Sale. Ken
dALl Kane, lie Ka'b,
Tie following causes conclude cur repor, Of the
decisions Of this court at its late ,eru
u, H. ". eastman Va J. 0. GlorerS B. c.
Coo6- Error to Ia Salle--E ; Leland tcrp'fT and
Clover & Cook for defendants Judgment atfrm-
cd, Opinion by Treat !. This was an action
Of ,roycg for promissoyy note brought under the
following circumstances: Isaac Il FIeadeuburg
claimed 10 be enullcd to the sum OF five hundred
dollars md interest, which IFiIliam Simmons had
paid to the County Commissioners OF this county
An action had been commenced in the name ct
Simmons aglins, the County to recover ysis money
back, and there had been judzmen, against the
county for the amount and interest Freairnburg
claimed that tire Judgment belonged 10 him. and
JOHNNY. \. Hoes claimed that i, belonged 10 him
Freadenhurg had employed Glover & Cook to a..
tend 10 the collection Of he claim as attorneys al
law ami wen, 10 California, after having given 10
/ Cushnan a power OF attorney, dated March sh
1919. 10 settle and compound this particular claim +,
and, also. another powe, OF attorney, dsted Ap.
81, lS49, 10 John Fre!en5urs to transact his bust
ness generally. Whiiein California Isaac II E.ea-
Jen5arg sen; to Cushmau another power oiattorney,
dated November gan, 1919, giving hun full power
10 attend 10 a., business for hm FrcadcntuiE lrf
for California in the spring Of 1919. aud IN the f
Clover & Cook as his attorneys, entered into ne
gocitiou with Hoes 10 settle the matter; and pend
/ ing the negotiation, Cushmlu, having the power
10 compound the matter above mentioned, they oc-
cas.onay counseled and advised with Cushman Is
10 wha: amount they should accept The matter
was finally adjusted by Hoes giving his role for SIS
dated IN September for F5eolenturg's claim to the.
payment, and Glover & Cook took the note payable
10 themselves stating At the time that So Of D, be-
.onged 20 them for their fec, iot attending TO rh,
matter for Freadenburg The note was delivered
+ By Hoes to Glover i; Cook In FebTu1ry it was
proved to be in Cushman's possession There was
10 evidence shown, how he obtained tn, possession
/ ofN.
/ The suit was commenced February 25 1880 4
demand was made by Glover upon Cushman, before
the suit was commenced, to deliver the note to hun
The time of the demand did no, appear On the
9th day OF February Glover Il Cook purchased OF
lohu Freadenburga all Isaac IL Freaienburss inter.
esiin the note and in payment gave the note Of
Glover for so payable to John Fgealcrburg as the
attorney Of Isaac H. FyeaJenburg when the Hoes
note should be collected
Upon this state Of facts the cour, decided thu, the
presumption from the whole case was lha; Cush.
man acquired the possession Of the note with the
,assen, OF Clover & Cook. That the powers of at.
iomcy Of John Freadcnburg and Cushman were
equivalent; that each was Authorized to make such
disposition Of the note as he should deem best for
the interest Of his principal; that John Frcadenburg
con.d sell the note to Glover & Cook against Cush-
mans consent though at the time il was in his pos.
session retained by him as the attorney Isaac Il
FTeadenburg ana that they obtained by their pur-
chase The ega aud equitable interest m the note and
the right Of possession, az 10 enable them to main
tain tgoycrag iinst Cu-hmin fort conversion Or
il other words, that, although the powers Of the two
agents were equivalent and each was authorized to
bcs' to the interest OF his principal yet the power
oihe agent ofpossession OF the note to exchange
the note Of Hoes tor the note Of Glover was greater
than that OF the agent in possession OF the note de-
eide that it was not prudent 10 do 50 That the
right oiposses-lon could not be retained bytkc agent
IN possession but could be disposed oi ly the agent
out OF possession That the retaining the note BY
one was retaining it against Isaa; II Fralnlu-l
thatthe drPogng oft by the other was d,-p9sng Of
1t tOr l+aao II Frealcnburz; that eastman, aldo
a. the agent Of Isaac II. Frea ienburr might have
DISC proved Of the exchange OF the note a q. Owe
or, although he nigh, have been entirely l.no!anr
! OF the exchange having been male, became tgrt
teaSer and guilty ola conversion by refusing to deli.
yer the possession Of the note to Glover on demand
although the demand for,he note was not shown 10
have been after the purchase Of the note by the plan.
uiF.
Would it not, under those circumstances. have
been NOR" correct in principle to have SAID tina,
when two agents, having equivalent powers other
wise, the power decide N relation 10 The dspos.
ton OF the properly Of the principal sholl b,ong to
him who had the posse ssIon rather than to hun VIII,
o had not,
=. Reynolds VS.. Perry Appeal from Livingston
Appeal dismissed
'' Eaoays. Gmbam-AppeaI from Bureau-E s
: Leland torarpe.lant, q. c Cook orappc.lee Judg
{ ment affirmed
It Glouer W. Fister-Appeal from Stephenson
e Turner and Sweet for appellant, Jason Marsh 70
!. appellee. Decree reversed
Horey etni. Va. Hoicomb-Error to Cocktail
lingalI, Champin&. Spring forp'lTs, Wilson Il Col
& Inns for def'l Decree reversed
. Young vs.. Lordia--Error 10 10 DayIcss--J. !
Hoge for ptf, r. Campbell for dei't Judgnrr
reversed.
=" Young Va. Keough-EuoT 20 10 D1y.ess-J.
!" lloge for p,f, +. Campbell for deft Judgmer
u reversed and new trial
N Norris ct ais ys. Cityof Ciicago-Appeal irol
Fl Cook-Morris & WILSON for appellants, Ehlcaern
rs fo' appellee Judgment reversed anu cause rcGar
ded.
n Sherman vs.. Baddcriy--Appeal from Cook
a.. Peck & Dckey for appellant, Mannlorrc for appe
-, lee. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
- IFilcorea vs.. McGhse-Appeal from Stephel
u son--Swect for appellant, Turner for appellee