{
  "id": 5401764,
  "name": "Manuel H. Boals, Appellant, v. Alexander Wegener, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boals v. Wegener",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "325",
  "last_page": "326",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ill. App. 325"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 3371,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "574715adb09474758e7a000faa9c23619777f224e927b3a696c428ebc9343159",
    "simhash": "1:785ae365089c46cf",
    "word_count": 551
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:48.967362+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Manuel H. Boals, Appellant, v. Alexander Wegener, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Higbee\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Higbee"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Levi Davis and William; P. Boynton, for appellant.",
      "John J. Brenholt and Warnock, Williamson & Burroughs, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Manuel H. Boals, Appellant, v. Alexander Wegener, Appellee.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hoii. Louis Bernreuter, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Manual H. Boals, complainant, against Alexander Wegener, defendant, for contribution between cosureties on an indemnity bond given the corporate surety on a contractor\u2019s building- bond. From a judgment for defendant, complainant appeals.\nLevi Davis and William; P. Boynton, for appellant.\nJohn J. Brenholt and Warnock, Williamson & Burroughs, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Principal and surety, \u00a7 92 \u2014when right of contribution between cosureties exists. On a bill for contribution between sureties on an indemnity bond given a corporate surety on a contractor\u2019s building bond, where it appeared that the surety company, upon default of the contractor, called upon complainant to keep it harmless; that complainant notified defendant that they were expected to protect the surety company; that defendant told complainant\u2019s son to go ahead and if there was any shortage he would pay his portion; that complainant thereupon completed the work, and, after deducting the amount due the corporation of which complainant was president, notes of such company were given for the shortage; that such notes were subsequently paid by the check of such company; that the amount of such checks and the account for materials were charged on the books of the company to complainant\u2019s personal account; that the dividend received from the contractor\u2019s bankrupt estate was applied by complainant to the shortage, and the expenses incurred by complainant in securing the dividend and in completing the work and interest on the shortage were included in the amount sought to be recovered, held that the direction of the defendant to go ahead and complete the work and the promise to pay his share of the loss was a promise to complainant, and was sufficient authority for him to complete the work, and that defendant should in equity be held to pay his share of all reasonable costs incurred thereby. \"\n2. Principal and surety, \u00a7 98*\u2014tvhen burden of proof is on complainant seeking contribution from cosurety. On a bill in equity for contribution between sureties on a bond given to indemnify a surety on a building contractor\u2019s bond, held that the burden of proof was on complainant to show what the reasonable amount of the shortage and expenses incurred by complainant were.\n3. Principal and surety, \u00a7 92*\u2014when payment by surety considered as made in cash. On a bill for contribution between sureties, where one of the questions was whether the fact that certain notes given in payment of the shortage in question, and also an account for materials furnished, which was part of the shortage, were charged to complainant\u2019s account on the books of the company, of which he was president, could be considered as though such items had been paid by complainant in cash, held that the benefit to the defendant was the same, and that the transaction must be considered as though payment had been made in cash.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0325-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 370
}