{
  "id": 2874784,
  "name": "Henry Schwartz, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago State Pawners Society, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schwartz v. Chicago State Pawners Society",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,667",
  "first_page": "93",
  "last_page": "97",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 93"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "74 Cal. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        4379727
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/74/0250-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Fed. 776",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        3744446
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/17/0776-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Minn. 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        565605
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/41/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5203650
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/69/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 Ill. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3423845
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/240/0311-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 398,
    "char_count": 7984,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.022136816272922e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31620588690692003
    },
    "sha256": "8ccf0587a832bd218bf3acd22051713a9346afbcfd7e7d29d9a8b1106ce4dc02",
    "simhash": "1:e61e50219bcaa06c",
    "word_count": 1376
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Schwartz, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago State Pawners Society, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis suit was brought in the Municipal Court to recover the value of three diamonds upon which, the defendant company had made a loan, and which defendant refused to deliver to the plaintiff upon demand and a, tender of the amount due.\nIt appears from the evidence that on November 25, 1912, one Miller deposited a diamond with the defendant as security for a loan of one hundred dollars, and on the same day, one Neiss also pledged a diamond ring and a loose diamond as security for a loan of two hundred and fifty dollars. Defendant issued its pawn tickets to the borrowers by name. Each of these tickets describes the property pawned and the amount loaned thereon, states that the interest is \u201cone and one-half per cent, per month, can be paid monthly,\u201d that the loans are due in one month, with a privilege of renewal on payment of accrued interest within one year thereafter, that the property so pledged \u201cmay be delivered to any person presenting this pawn ticket,\u201d and that the Pawners Society \u2018 \u2018 shall not be liable for loss or damage in any event for more than twenty-five per cent, in addition to the amount loaned.\u201d It further appears that the diamonds were the property of the plaintiff and that he held the pawn tickets; that on May 26, 1913, after the loans had run six months and one day, plaintiff presented the tickets to defendant at its office, and tendered it in cash the amount of the loans with interest thereon for six months. The president of the defendant company refused the tender upon the ground that defendant was entitled to another month\u2019s interest because the loans had run one day more than six months. The plaintiff refused to pay the additional month\u2019s interest demanded and this suit followed. Upon a trial before the court without a jury, a judgment was rendered in favor of th\u00e9 plaintiff for $449.92, being the value of the diamonds less the amount tendered, together with interest on the re- . mainder at five per cent. The defendant sued out this writ of error.\nThe defendant contends, first, that as this action was brought as a fourth-class case \u201cin contract\u201d the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in his own name because, it is said, the pawn tickets are the only evidence of the contract and are not negotiable instruments; second, the alleged tender was insufficient, because it was not for the exact amount due, was not kept good, and was not unconditional; third, the judgment exceeds the limit of the liability of defendant as expressed in the contract. We think none of these contentions is well founded.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim states, in substance, a cause of action in trover. The refusal of defendant to surrender the pledged property upon a proper demand and a proper tender of the amount due was a wrongful act amounting to a conversion. It is immaterial what name a plaintiff in the Municipal Court may give to his action. If the statement of claim shows a cause of action in tort, it will be treated as such (Edgerton v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 240 Ill. 311). The pawn tickets in this case recite upon, their face that the pledged property may be delivered to any person presenting the tickets. The production of the tickets was therefore prima facie evidence of the plaintiff\u2019s title, and there is no evidence to overcome this presumption. Moreover, the plaintiff testified that he was the owner of the diamonds as well as the tickets. Whether such tickets are or are not negotiable, therefore, is an immaterial question in this case.\nAs to the question of tender, while it is true that the amount tendered on May 26, 1913, was seventeen and one-half cents less than the actual amount due at that time, yet the defendant did not place its refusal upon that ground. It refused upon the ground that because one day of another month had elapsed, it was entitled to a full month\u2019s additional interest. Having placed its refusal upon that ground, which was clearly unauthorized, we think it could not afterwards avoid the effect of such tender merely on the ground that it was seventeen and one-half cents less than it should have been.\nThis tender and refusal instantly extinguished the defendant\u2019s lien upon the property, and its retention of the same thereafter was unauthorized and unlawful, and amounted to a conversion; and this result was not affected by the plaintiff\u2019s failure (if he did fail) to keep his tender good. McPherson v. James, 69 Ill. App. 337; Norton v. Baxter, 41 Minn. 146; Mitchell v. Roberts, 17 Fed. 776; Loughborough v. McNevin, 74 Cal. 250; 31 Cyc. 852. There were no conditions attached to the tender. The purpose of the tender was to redeem the pledge, and a demand for the return of the pledged property did not make the tender conditional.\nAs to the third contention, we are of the opinion that the provision of the contracts limiting the pledgee\u2019s liability to twenty-five per cent, .more than the loan was not intended to apply to a case of conversion, but was intended to cover loss or damage to the property occurring from the defendant\u2019s negligence or by accident.\nFinding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the Municipal Court will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Litzinger, McGurn & Reid, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Bernard J. Brown, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Schwartz, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago State Pawners Society, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,667.\n1. Pledges, \u00a7 42 \u2014when refusal to return pledged property is conversion. Where a defendant refuses to surrender pledged property upon proper demand and a proper tender of the amount due, there is a wrongful act amounting to a conversion, and a statement of claim alleging such facts states, in substance, a cause of action in trover.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014what are essentials of statement of claim. It is immaterial what name a plaintiff in the Municipal Court may give to his action, and if the statement of claim shows a cause of action in tort, it will be treated as such.\n3. Pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers, \u00a7 3 \u2014when pawn tickets ore prima fade evidence. In a suit to recover the value of pledged property which the pledgee refused to surrender, where the pawn tickets recited that the pledged property was to be delivered to any person presenting the tickets, the production of such tickets was prima facie evidence of the plaintiff\u2019s title, and when the plaintiff testified that he was the owner of the pledged property it was immaterial whetherr the pawn tickets were negotiable.\n4. Pledges, \u00a7 22 \u2014when effect of tender cannot be avoided. Where a pledgor of property offered to pay the amount of money loaned with interest, and the pledgee refused such amount on the ground that interest for another month was due, such pledgee could not subsequently avoid the effect of the pledgor\u2019s tender on the ground that one day\u2019s interest should have been included, and the tender was therefore insufficient.\n5. Pledges, \u00a7 22 \u2014what is effect of tender. Where a pledgor of property tendered the amount due to redeem the pledge and demanded the property, the pledgee\u2019s lien upon such property was extinguished and its retention of the same thereafter was unauthorized and unlawful, amounting to a conversion, and such result was not affected by the pledgor\u2019s failure to keep his tender good.\n6. Pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers, \u00a7 3 \u2014what is effect of restriction of liability printed on pawn ticket, A provision of a contract printed on a pawn ticket, limiting the pledgee\u2019s liability for loss or damage to twenty-five per cent, more than the loan, does not apply to a case of conversion, but to loss occurring from negligence or accident.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La Buy, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1915.\nLitzinger, McGurn & Reid, for plaintiff in error.\nBernard J. Brown, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0093-01",
  "first_page_order": 119,
  "last_page_order": 123
}