From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sullivan v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois
May 20, 1947
331 Ill. App. 613 (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)

Opinion

Gen. No. 43,559. (Abstract of Decision.)

Opinion filed May 20, 1947 Rehearing denied June 4, 1947 Released for publication June 9, 1947

RELEASES, § 15equitable relief, want of consideration and mistake of fact. Court of equity was justified in setting aside release under seal, respecting liability of railway company for injuries sustained by employee, where sum received by latter purportedly in consideration therefor covered only amount to which employee was entitled as a matter of right for loss of time and consequently he received nothing for injuries sustained, and where employee did not know when he executed release that he suffered serious brain injury, irrespective of whether company had knowledge thereof, since it was not necessary that mistake of fact be mutual.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN C. LEWE, Judge, presiding.

Decretal order affirmed. Heard in the second division, first district, this court at the October term, 1945.

Knapp, Cushing, Hershberger Stevenson, for appellant;

Harlan L. Hackbert, of counsel;

Jones, Key Chapman, for appellee;

C.D. Jones and Alfred W. Bosworth, of counsel.


Not to be published in full. Opinion filed May 20, 1947; rehearing denied June 4, 1947; released for publication June 9, 1947.


Summaries of

Sullivan v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois
May 20, 1947
331 Ill. App. 613 (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)
Case details for

Sullivan v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co.

Case Details

Full title:John J. Sullivan, Appellee, v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois

Date published: May 20, 1947

Citations

331 Ill. App. 613 (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)
73 N.E.2d 632

Citing Cases

Hall v. Strom Construction Co.

To make doubly sure that the scope of this opinion is definably understood, we note that no case of…