{ "id": 2429025, "name": "Goldie Brinker, Appellant, v. Chicago Transit Authority, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Brinker v. Chicago Transit Authority", "decision_date": "1951-10-24", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 45,365", "first_page": "479", "last_page": "482", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "344 Ill. App. 479" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "214 Ill. 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3317311 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/214/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 Ill. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4915021 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/284/0227-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 297, "char_count": 4603, "ocr_confidence": 0.53, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1681480220048803e-07, "percentile": 0.5856474643888505 }, "sha256": "9e65bc358da667445f21d1f523e5bcee86abf8931cbed9806682a8943c8feb9a", "simhash": "1:0cdbc713160282e0", "word_count": 764 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:22.709040+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Goldie Brinker, Appellant, v. Chicago Transit Authority, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Kiley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a personal injury action with verdict and judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff has appealed and limits her contentions to those affecting the release which was pleaded in bar to the action.\nThe accident in which plaintiff was injured occurred on July 23, 1947. On July 25, plaintiff accompanied by her husband conferred with defendant\u2019s agent about settling the husband\u2019s claim for property damage and plaintiff\u2019s claim for personal injury. Both signed releases. Thereafter, on August 21, 1947, plaintiff sued. Defendant answered joining issue on the allegations of plaintiff\u2019s due care and defendant\u2019s negligence. Affirmatively, it alleged the execution by plaintiff of the release of defendant from liability. Plaintiff replied, admitting execution of the release, but charging fraud in the execution. The issues under the complaint and on the affirmative defense were submitted to the jury. The jury decided the issues in favor of defendant.\nPlaintiff contends that the release is void for want of consideration, and that the finding of the jury on the question of fraud is against the manifest weight of evidence.\nThe release was under seal, and the presumption is that it was executed for a valuable consideration and it cannot be attacked in this action at law for want of consideration. Woodbury v. United States Casualty Co., 284 Ill. 227.\nThe question of fraud is limited to execution of the release. Hartley v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 214 Ill. 78. The release recites that for a consideration of $25 \u201cin hand paid\u201d by defendant\u2019s predecessors, plaintiff and her husband agreed to pay attorney\u2019s fees and hospital charges, and release defendant from all claims, etc., for anything done, etc., from the beginning of the world, etc., and especially on account of the instant accident. The release also provides that plaintiff and her husband \u201cunderstand and agree\u201d that they had no further claim to anything more even if their injuries are or become different or more serious than \u201cthey now understand them to be.\u201d\nThe testimony in support of plaintiff\u2019s reply is that defendant\u2019s agent told plaintiff she had no case whatsoever and that she had to sign the release in order that the husband might settle the property damage claim; that-the release plaintiff signed was for the property damages; that she should settle the case to save time and a lot of trouble; and that she was getting $25 for the inconvenience. Plaintiff said she signed the release thinking that she was signing a release for the property damage; that she relied on the agent\u2019s statement that she was not signing a release for her injuries; and that she did not read the release before she signed it. The agent testified and denied making the statements attributed to him by plaintiff and her husband. He said that they both \u201clooked over\u201d and read the releases before signing them.\nDeciding who to believe on what transpired was the province of the jury. In addition to the foregoing evidence, there was testimony by plaintiff and her husband that she signed the release in order to effect a property damage settlement since they needed the car to take plaintiff to the doctor for treatment. However, the husband drove plaintiff to the doctor the day after the accident, and to the agent\u2019s office the second day after the accident. The car had not then been repaired. Plaintiff, in one place in her testimony, said that when she signed the paper, she did not know what her injury was. The previous day, however, she had been to the doctor who testified that, at the time, she was bent over and suffering a great deal of pain, and plaintiff was then told she had a displaced vertebrae. Plaintiff also testified that she accepted the $25 from defendant in order to facilitate settlement of her husband\u2019s claim,- and later that it was for the inconvenience defendant had caused in her \u201ccondition.\u201d\nWe think the finding of the jury on the issue of fraud in execution of the release is not against the manifest weight of evidence.\nWe have considered all that we believe necessary to a decision, and for the reasons given the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nLews and Feinberg, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Kiley" } ], "attorneys": [ "Harrington & Sweitzer, of Chicago, for appellant; Charles D. Snewind, of Chicago, of counsel.", "Werner W. Schroeder, James O. Dwight, James K. Miller, Arthur J. Donovan, all of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Goldie Brinker, Appellant, v. Chicago Transit Authority, Appellee.\nGen. No. 45,365.\nOpinion filed October 24, 1951.\nReleased for publication November 21, 1951.\nHarrington & Sweitzer, of Chicago, for appellant; Charles D. Snewind, of Chicago, of counsel.\nWerner W. Schroeder, James O. Dwight, James K. Miller, Arthur J. Donovan, all of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0479-01", "first_page_order": 513, "last_page_order": 516 }