{ "id": 3240437, "name": "Charles J. R. Sproule and/or The Fidelity Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Appellee, v. Edward J. Taffe, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Sproule v. Taffe", "decision_date": "1938-03-21", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 39,830", "first_page": "374", "last_page": "376", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "294 Ill. App. 374" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "80 Utah 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Utah", "case_ids": [ 8870845 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/utah/80/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 La. 872", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La.", "case_ids": [ 1270237 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la/159/0871-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Pac. (2d) 80", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 2816774 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/colo/100/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 Col. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Col.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N. W. 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 Wis. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8693174 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/219/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S. E. 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 W. Va. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W. Va.", "case_ids": [ 8637273 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/w-va/116/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 So. 407", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 Ala. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3644483 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/226/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 Ill. App. 8", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3155618 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/290/0008-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 Ill. App. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5618029 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/280/0247-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 Ill. App. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3253520 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/270/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Ill. App. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3330779 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/268/0232-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 Ill. App. 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5630349 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/260/0435-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 334, "char_count": 4030, "ocr_confidence": 0.518, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.09122867781094574 }, "sha256": "a71ea7656ff9cb6441bc48a685456bf8c6c7e42d5b4ebd8fe423d344e655aaad", "simhash": "1:5492918abe62ac7c", "word_count": 697 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:56:33.268826+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Charles J. R. Sproule and/or The Fidelity Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Appellee, v. Edward J. Taffe, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n\u201cCharles J. R. Sproule, Trustee and/or The Fidelity Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, a corporation,\u201d caused judgment by confession on a written lease to be entered against Edward J. Taffe. The statement of claim alleged that the lease was attached to it and that the claim was for \u201crent accruing on said lease from the 1st day of March, 1937, for the months of all March and April balance, $8.75 at $37.50 per month amounting to $46.25\u201d and claim was also made for $14.44 for attorney\u2019s fees, making a total of $60.69, for which amount judgment was entered, a cognovit having been attached to the statement of claim. Afterward defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment; the motion was overruled and he appeals.\nThe sole ground urged for reversal is that the entire proceeding, including the judgment, is so uncertain and indefinite as to require a reversal of the judgment. The lease which was prepared by the landlord or landlords recites that it is between Charles J. R. Sproule and/or the Fidelity Life Insurance Co. of Philadelphia and the tenant Taffe.\nWe have many times condemned in unmeasured terms the use of \u201cand/or\u201d as a \u201cconfusing fad,\u201d \u201caccuracy destroying symbol,\u201d \u201cpollution of the English language,\u201d that \u201cbarbarism,\u201d \u201cunsightly hieroglyphic,\u201d \u201cverbal teratism,\u201d and other terms of a similar character that we could think of up to this time. See Preble v. Architectural Union, 260 Ill. App. 435; Tarjan v. National Surety Co., 268 Ill. App. 232; Thibodeaux v. Uptown Motors Corp., 270 Ill. App. 191; City Nat. Bank v. Davis Hotel Corp., 280 Ill. App. 247; Gallopin v. Continental Cas. Co., 290 Ill. App. 8. Many courts of other jurisdictions have, in like terms, condemned the use of this symbol, a few of which are Clay County Abstract Co. v. McKay, 226 Ala. 394, 140 So. 407; Bell v. Wayne, 116 W. Va. 280, 181 S. E. 609; Employers\u2019 Ins. Co. v. Tollefsen, 219 Wis. 434, 263 N. W. 376; Equitable Life Ass\u2019n v. Hemenover, 100 Col. 231, 67 Pac. (2d) 80; State v. Dudley, 159 La. 872;. Putnam v. Industrial Comm., 80 Utah 187, 14 Pac. (2d) 973.\nIn the Dudley case the Supreme Court of Louisiana was endeavoring to construe a statute where the confusing symbol was used, and in the course of the opinion discussed the use of it in contracts. In this connection it was said (p. 878): \u201cIn other words such an expression in a contract amounts in effect to a direction to those charged with construing the contract to give it such interpretation as will best accord with the equity of the situation, and for that purpose to use either \u2018and\u2019 or \u2018or\u2019 and be held down to neither:\u201d\nIn the Putnam case (80 Utah 187, 14 Pac. (2d) 973) the Supreme Court of Utah reversed a judgment in a workman\u2019s compensation case, one of the grounds being that the use of \u201cand/or\u201d in findings and judgments rendered them too uncertain and indefinite to support the award. The court there said (p. 984): \u201cWe think the findings and judgment too uncertain to give effect to them. And, for that and other reasons stated, the award is annulled, and the cause remanded to the commission for further proceedings.\u201d\nIn 11 Ency. PI. & Prac. 949, it is said: \u201cA judgment not designating in whose favor it is rendered is void for uncertainty.\u201d\nIn the instant case the judgment does not designate with any degree of certainty in whose favor it is rendered, and under the rule it is void for uncertainty; for that reason the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.\nWe think we ought to say that counsel for plaintiff or plaintiffs state they had no part in drawing the lease.\nReversed and remanded.\nMcSurely and Hatchett, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor" } ], "attorneys": [ "Rudniok & Wolfe, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Ivan Barton Goode, of Chicago, for appellee; George A. Gordon, of Chicago, of counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Charles J. R. Sproule and/or The Fidelity Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Appellee, v. Edward J. Taffe, Appellant.\nGen. No. 39,830.\nOpinion filed March 21, 1938.\nRehearing denied April 4, 1938.\nRudniok & Wolfe, of Chicago, for appellant.\nIvan Barton Goode, of Chicago, for appellee; George A. Gordon, of Chicago, of counsel." }, "file_name": "0374-01", "first_page_order": 438, "last_page_order": 440 }