third district.

No. 33.

#### Decatur and Springfield R. R. Co. v. Ervin et al.

Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.

The defendants in error recovered of the plaintiff in error a sum found to be due for rebate upon certain shipments of grain. The record being brought here, the question is presented whether the contracts under which the defendant below agreed to make the rebate were valid and binding as between the parties thereto. The Supreme Court has settled the point involved adversely to the plaintiff in error : T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Elliott et al., 76 Ill. 67; The P. D. & E. Ry. Co. v. Cecil et al., 112 Ill. 180.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Attorneys, for appellant, Mr. James A. Eads; for appellee, Mr. C. C. Clark and Messrs. Nelson & Harnsserg.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judge below, J. W.Wilktn.