a corporation but was an arm or agency of, of a president, as many vice presidents as the state for the management of the depart- there are or from time to time may be conment of agriculture. The plaintiff moved gressional districts in this state, and the last to strike the special pleas from the files, ex-president of the State Board of Agriculwhich motion was allowed. Defendant ex- ture. The said president and vice presidents cepted to the ruling and elected to stand by were to hold their offices for two years. The its special pleas. A jury was impaneled, the first board under the act was to consist of cause tried, and a verdict rendered in favor the president, vice presidents, and the last of the plaintiff for $1,500.

ex-president of the Illinois State Agricultural At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, Society. The board was to have a secretary and also at the conclusion of all the evi- and treasurer, who should not be members dence, defendant moved the court to instruct of the board. The first secretary and treasthe jury to find it not guilty, but the motions urer were to be the secretary and treasurer were denied. After the verdict was returned, of the Illinois State Agricultural Society. defendant moved for a new trial and in ar- The second section of the act gave the State rest of judgment, but the motions were over-Board of Agriculture sole control of the afruled and judgment rendered on the verdict. fairs of the department of agriculture, of all Defendant prosecuted this appeal directly to state fairs, and power to make such by-laws, this court on the ground that the state is ruies, and regulations in the management of interested and that the construction of the the business of the department of agriculture Constitution and the validity of a statute are and state fairs, and in offering premiums, involved.

as the board might from time to time deIt is contended that appellant is an arm or termine upon, but the state was in no event agency of the state and cannot be held liable to be liable for any premium offered or debt for the negligence complained of; that it is contracted by said board. Section 3 authornot a corporation but is a board managing a ized the State Board of Agriculture to make department of the state, namely, the depart- provision for the organization of county agriment of agriculture, and making it a defend cultural boards. Section 4 provided that ant in this suit is the same as making the money appropriated from time to time for state a defendant, which is forbidden by sec- the department of agriculture should be paid tion 26 of article 4 of the Constitution. It to the State Board of Agriculture, to be exis also contended that section 5 of the act pended in such manner as in the opinion of creating the State Board of Agriculture, in said board would best advance the interests so far as it authorizes said board to be sued, of agriculture, horticulture, manufacturing, is invalid. It is further contended that on and domestic arts in this state. Section 5 the merits the verdict and judgment are required the board to keep an office at Springmanifestly against the weight of the evi. field for the transaction of its business, and dence.

provided that, when the new state house was The Illinois State Agricultural Society was so far completed as to allow it, there should created by an act of the Legislature in 1853 be assigned to the department of agriculture (Laws 1853, p. 230), which act provided suitable rooms therein, to be under the conthat the society should be known as a body trol of the said board. Section 6 authorized politic and corporate. The object of the the State Board of Agriculture to contract society was declared to be “to promote the and be contracted with, to purchase, hold, agricultural, horticultural, manufacturing, or sell property, and to sue and be sued in

, mechanic, and household arts,” and for that all courts or places, but the state was not to purpose the society was authorized to hold be liable for any of its debts or contracts. real estate to the amount of $25,000. The Section 7 provided the time at which the act authorized the society to contract and be first election for members of the board should contracted with, and to sue and be sued in be held and the manner in which they should all courts of law or equity in this state, and be elected. The board was required to make to enjoy all the privileges incident to corpora- annual reports to the Governor of the transtions of its character not inconsistent with actions of the department of agriculture, givthe laws of this state. The society was given ing a complete, classified, financial statement power to alter and amend its constitution of all money received and of all expenditures and to make, alter, and repeal such by-laws and expenses, and the Governor was required as might be deemed necessary for carrying to cause 10,000 copies of said annual report out the objects of the society. In 1871 the to be printed, one-half for the use of the deGeneral Assembly passed an act entitled "Anpartment of agriculture and the remainder act to create a department of agriculture in for the use of the state and General Asthe state of Illinois" (Laws 1871–72, p. 113), sembly. In 1874 the act of 1871 (Rev. St. the object of which was the promotion of 1874, p. 130) was revised, but no changes agriculture, horticulture, manufacturing, and were made which are necessary to be noticed domestic arts. Section 1 provided that the in the decision of this case. The act was business of said department should be con- again revised in 1883. Laws of 1883, p. 1. It ducted by a board to be styled “the State provided that the department of agriculture Board of Agriculture," which should consist should be continued, and contained substantially all the provisions of the previous acts, moting the objects of the department of of 1871 and 1874 with reference to the duties agriculture. Holding state fairs was recog. and powers of the State Board of Agricul- nized in the act as belonging to the manageture. In addition to giving the board solement of the department of agriculture, and control of the affairs of the department of the State Board of Agriculture was given agriculture and state fairs, it was authorized the management of them. It is a matter of to hold fat stock shows at such times and common knowledge that, to make fairs sucplaces as it might determine upon. The pow- cessful, inducements must be offered to proer conferred by the previous acts upon the cure the exhibition of stock, agricultural board to purchase, hold, and sell property, products, etc., and giving the board power to to contract and be contracted with, and to manage and control the state fairs and to sue and be sued was retained in the act of determine what inducements should be of1883, as was also the requirement that the fered to exhibitors, either as premiums or

otherwise, and what admission fee or other board make annual reports to the Governor.

[1] Appellee contends that the Illinois charges should be made, was not conferring Agricultural Society was a private corpora- powers unnecessary to the management of tion, and, whether the act creating the de- the department of agriculture. The only obpartment of agriculture was an amendment ject for which the State Board of Agriculof the former society's charter or the crea- ment of agriculture, and giving the board

ture was created was to manage the departtion of a new corporation, appellant is a private corporation or at most a quasi pub- power to make rules and regulations for the lic corporation, to which are delegated the efficient management of the department did control and management of the state depart- not take from it its public character and ment of agriculture. Prior to 1871 there subject it to the liabilities of a private cor

. was no department of the state known as the poration. The board acquired no rights by

the act creating it that the Legislature could department of agriculture. The act of that not at any time change, alter, or abolish. year created a department of the state known The property acquired by it, the money apas the department of agriculture, and the sole control of its management for the pur- for admissions to the fair and from any oth

propriated to it by the state, and the receipts pose of best promoting the objects of its es

er source were trust property and funds, retablishment was conferred upon a board created for that purpose, to be known as the benefit of the department of agriculture, and

quired to be used and expended for the State Board of Agriculture. Appellee con- none of it, even if there should at any time cedes in his brief that, in so far as the acts be a surplus above the expenses, belongs to of the State Board of Agriculture relate to or could be appropriated by the members of the department of agriculture, its acts are the board. It is required to annually report of such public nature as to be classed as acts to the Governor and account for all its reof the state, “and in performing the partic-ceipts and expenditures. One of its sources ular duties in connection with the manage of income is appropriations made to it by ment of the department of agriculture the the Legislature every two years since the deState Board of Agriculture acts as the agen-partment of agriculture was established, and cy of the state.” But it is argued that the its management devolved upon the board creboard has powers and enjoys privileges notated for that purpose. These and all othconferred for the purpose of enabling it to er funds received by the board it is authormanage the department of agriculture as an ized to expend only for the advancement of agency of the state, the logical result of which agriculture, horticulture, manufactures, and would be that the board would not be liable domestic arts in this state. The employment in an action for damages for negligence in of two persons not members of the board, one the management and conduct of the depart- for secretary and one for treasurer, and the ment of agriculture but would be liable for payment to them of a salary, is authorized, its negligence when in the discharge of du- but the board has no stockholders, pays no ties other than those necessarily incident to dividends, and was not created or organized the management of the department of agri- for the profit of its members. It is essenculture. We are unable to agree with appel- tially a public board created to manage a lee's contention. In the first place, we think department of the state and is not subject it plain the State Board of Agriculture was to the liabilities of a private or quasi public created as an arm or agency of the state for corporation. the purpose of managing and conducting a The liability of the Iowa State Agriculdepartment of the state, and all the powers tural Society for a tort was before the Suconferred and duties enjoined upon the board preme Court of Iowa in Hern v. Iowa State were for the purpose of enabling it to man- Agricultural Society, 91 Iowa, 97, 58 N. W. age the department in such manner as, to 1092. The court said: “The only question best promote the objects of its creation. It for us to determine is as to the liability of

. was and is well known that state fairs, at the society for the acts complained of, and which farm products, agricultural imple at the outset it is important to have in mind ments, and all kinds of stock are exhibited, that the society is in no sense a corporation

state. It exists for the sole purpose of pro-, ated under that act, is a private corporamoting the public interest in the business of tion. We do not regard that case as authoragriculture. Its public character more fully ity in favor of the proposition that the Illiappears when we consider that its organiza- nois State Board of Agriculture is a private tion is provided for by statute; that it has corporation. The act under which the Indino stockholders; that by law the president ana board was organized was materially of each county agricultural society in the different from the Illinois act and afforded state, or other delegate therefrom, duly au- good reason for holding that the organizathorized, is made a member of the board of tion created by it was a private corporation. directors; that said board is required to We are also referred by appellee to Lane make annual reports to the Governor, which v. Minnesota State Agricultural Society, 62 are to be distributed throughout the state; Minn, 175, 64 N. W. 382, 29 L. R. A. 708, that the powers of the board are prescribed where it was held that under the statute by statute.

* Not being a corpora- then existing the State Agricultural Society tion for pecuniary profit, the defendant so was a private corporation and liable to a ciety's liability is not controlled by the rules party injured by its negligence. The act of law applicable to such. The society is an then in force under which the State Agricularm or agency of the state, organized for tural Society existed was subsequently rethe promotion of the public good and for the placed by another act, under which it was advancement of the agricultural interests of held the society was an arm or agency of the the state. It would be manifestly wrong to state. Berman v. Minnesota State Agriculpermit its funds to be used to pay damages tural Society, supra. arising out of the commission of wrongful Whether agricultural societies are private acts by its officers and servants and which corporations or agencies of the state for the are in no wise connected with the object and conduct and management of a department of purpose of the society's creation."

the government depends upon the legislative In Berman v. Minnesota State Agricultural act creating them. It is not claimed by apSociety, 93 Minn. 125, 100 N. W. 732, the pellee that the Legislature had not the power plaintiff sued the society for a tort. The to constitute the State Board of Agriculture

. court held the defendant was a state depart- an arm or agent of the state for the manment, and said: “The necessary result of agement of the department of agriculture. this conclusion places the society directly Indeed, as we have seen, it is conceded that under the exclusive authority of the state, the State Board of Agriculture is the agent which may change its officers or its organiza- of the state in the management of the detion and provide for different regulations for partment of agriculture and in its managethe government of the fair, as the best in- ment of that department is in the discharge terests of the public may, in the judgment of a governmental function. But it is conand wisdom of the Legislature, hereafter de tended that the act creates the board a pritermine. Hence for such injuries as plain- vate or quasi public corporation and deletiff claims to have sustained an appeal to gates to it governmental functions in the the Legislature furnishes the only redress, management of the department of agriculand we must assume that it will be granted ture. As before stated, this view does not if deserved." That decision was approved in appear to us to be warranted by the act crethe later case of Berman v. Cosgrove, 93 ating the department of agriculture and the Minn. 353, 104 N. W. 534.

board and delegating to the board the sole In Melvin v. State of California, 121 Cal. management of the department. 16, one of the questions involved was wheth- [2] If, as we hold, the State Board of er the State Agricultural Society was exer- Agriculture is an agency of the state in the cising a governmental function in conducting exercise of governmental functions, it is not a fair. Upon this question the court said : liable, under the common law, for injuries "The State Agricultural Society, under the claimed to have been sustained as a result act of 1880, became, ever since has been, and of its negligence. This is not disputed by 110w is, a state institution. * It ex-appellee and is so thoroughly settled by all ists for the sole purpose of promoting the the authorities that we deem it necessary to public interest in the business of agriculture cite only Hollenbeck v. County of Winneand kindred objects. It is an agency of the bago, 95 Ill. 148, 35 Am. Rep. 151, and Maia government and in no sense an organization v. Eastern State Hospital, 97 Va. 507, 34 S. for pecuniary profit to the state.”

E. 617, 47 L. R. A. 577. The opinions in Our attention is called to Downing v.

Downing v. these two cases contain a list of many auIndiana State Board of Agriculture, 129 thorities upon the subject. It is contended, Ind. 443, 28 N. E. 123, 614, 12 L. R. A. 664. however, by appellee that the statute exIt appears from the opinion in that case pressly makes the State Board of Agriculthat in 1851 the Legislature of the state of ture liable in actions of this character by Indiana passed an act by which the Indiana conferring upon it the right to sue and be State Board of Agriculture was incorporated. sued. The substance of the provisions of the act In Hollenbeck v. County of Winnebago, is set out by the court, and it is held that supra, the same point was made, and it was the Indiana State Board of Agriculture, cre-l insisted that the statute giving a county the

power to sue and be sued, to purchase and reached that the court erred in submitting hold personal and real property, and to make the case to the jury and rendering judgment contracts, made it liable in an action of tort on the verdict. The judgment is reversed. for negligence, but the court held otherwise. Judgment reversed.

In Moody v. State Prison of North Carolina, 128 N. C. 12, 38 S. E. 131, 53 L. R. A.

(259 Ill. 524) 855, which was an action for damages for negligence, the court said the statute incor

TAYLOR V. TAYLOR. porating the defendant did not confer upon (Supreme Court of Illinois. Oct. 28, 1913.) it authority to sue and be sued but that 1. EQUITY (8290*) PLEADING · SWORN such authority given by the statute had ref

BILLS.

Where the original bill was not sworn to, erence to private and quasi public corpora- the fact that the complainant testified fully in tions. The court held that statute did not its support before the master, and did not again apply to governmental agencies, and said: testify after an amended bill was filed, will not “But, even if such authority was given, it authorize the court to consider the original bill

as if it had been verified, in determining the would cover only actions ordinarily inciden- question of the allowance of amendments. tal in its operation and would not extend to [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Equity, Cent. causes of action like the present. There Dig. $ 549; Dec. Dig. & 290.*] is a distinct difference between conferring 2. EQUITY (8267*)-PLEADING—AMENDMENT suability as to 'debts and other liabilities for

-ALLOWANCE. which the state's prison is now liable and 1911, c. 22) $ 37, authorizing courts to permit

Under Chancery Act (Hurd's Rev. St. extending liability for causes not heretofore the amendment of bills upon such terms as they recognized.

This is substantially a may deem proper, so that neither party will be suit against the state. The defendant is a in Chancery proceedings are largely within the

The defendant is a surprised or unreasonably delayed, amendments mere agent of the state in the administra- discretion of the court, which may impose terms tion of its government.”

where deemed necessary. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held in [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Equity, Cent. Abston v. Waldon Academy, 118 Tenn. 24, Dig. &$ 545, 546; Dec. Dig. 8 267.*] 102 S. W. 351, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1179, that 3. EQUITY ($ 270*) PLEADINGS AMENDthe fact that the charter of a charitable

MENTS.

Amendments to unverified bills are allowed corporation maintained for educational pur- with greater liberty than to sworn bills, but a poses provides that it may sue and be sued complainant will not be denied the right to does not render it liable for the torts of amend a sworn bill, where he can show that its officers and agents.

a statement was made through mistake. In Leavell v. West Kentucky Asylum for Dig. § 557; Dec. Dig. $ 270.*]

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Equity, Cent. the Insane, 122 Ky. 213, 91 S. W. 671, 4 L. 4. EQUITY ($ 337*) – AMENDMENT OF PLEADR. A. (N. S.) 269, 12 Ann. Cas. 827, which

INGS. was an action for a tort, it was contended Where an amended bill sets up a state of that, because the statute creating the de- facts which, if true, would entitle the party to fendant authorized it to sue and be sued, it different from the facts alleged in the original

the same relief prayed in the original bill, but was placed upon the same footing as all bill, and of such a nature that they must have other corporations with respect to torts. The been known to the complainant when the origcourt said: “We do not think this conten- inal bill was filed, this may be considered in

determining whether the facts stated in the tion is sound. There are, it is true, many amendment are true. causes of action for which appellee may sue and also grounds upon which it may proper- Dig. 88 679–684; Dec. Dig. § 337.*] ly be sued. It may, through it officers, make 5. EQUITY (8267*)—PLEADING - AMENDMENT contracts for supplies for its inmates, incur

-ALLOWANCE. liabilities on that account, and, for the prop- the fraud by defendant, who was the adminis

In an action to set aside a conveyance for er maintenance of the institution, it may trator of the estate of complainant's father, sue for debts due it or to enforce any right where the original bill alleged that defendant allowed by law.

We are of the induced plaintiff to make the conveyance by opinion, therefore, that the right given ap- amount due the estate from complainant, and

misrepresenting the value of the estate and the pellee by statute to sue, and to others to that defendant, by substitution of instruments, sue it, is to be taken in a qualified sense procured the conveyance of property which was and should not be so construed or extended not intended to be included, the allowance of

the filing of an amended bill, which set up subas to make it responsible to persons injured, stantially the same facts, only with greater paras was appellant, by reason of the miscon- ticularity, except that it did not allege fraud in duct or negligence of its inmates or em- substituting, one deed for another, is not an

abuse of discretion, even though complainant ployés."

testified in support of the bill before the amendThe provision that the State Board of ment, and did not testify thereafter; there beAgriculture might sue and be sued was not ing no repugnancy between the two bills. intended to impose any new liability but had dig.s$ 545, 546; Dec. Dig. $ 267.*]

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Equity, Cent. reference only to obligations incurred by

§ contract in the management of the depart- 16. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS (8 58*)

RELIEF AWARDED_MONEY DECREE. ment of agriculture.

Where defendant, who procured a conveyIt follows from the conclusion we havelance by means of fraud, transferred some of

quity,

the property, plaintiff is entitled to a rescission, at law. At the time of his death John H. of the conveyance as to the lands not trans- Taylor owned 160 acres of land in Henry ferred, and to a money decree as to those dis-county, known as the home farm, 400 acres posed of

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Cancellation of other farm land in said county, some lots of Instruments, Cent. Dig. $$ 118, 120; Dec. in the village of Wethersfield, in said county, Dig. § 58.*]

and 100 acres of farm land in Dallas county, 7. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS ($ 24*) Iowa. His personal estate was inventoried ACTIONS-CONDITIONS PRECEDENT.

at over $20,000. Appellee was indicted in In a suit to set aside the conveyance of complainant's interest in the estate of his fa- Henry county for a criminal offense, and enther, which had been made for a consideration tered into a recognizance in the sum of $1,of $500, an actual tender of the $500 was not 500, with his father as security, for his apof the property, thus making a complete rescis- pearance to answer to the indictment. About sion impossible and a money judgment in part February 1, 1898, he departed from the state necessary; complainant alleging repeated offers of Illinois and forfeited his recognizance, to return the $500, on receipt of the property which was paid by his father. After the transferred, and his present willingness to do so, and to have the $500 credited on any money death of John H. Taylor, upon the petition decree in his favor.

of his widow, appellant was appointed ad[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Cancellation ministrator of the estate. The inventory of Instruments, Cent. Dig. 88 33–38; Dec. Dig. lists among the assets of the estate $10,400 in 8 24.*]

notes and claims against appellee and his 8. APPEAL AND ERROR ($ 1018*)-REVIEW

wife, Edna Taylor. Suits were brought on FINDINGS-SUFFICIENCY. In a suit to set aside a transfer of com

some of these claims against the appellee, plainant's interest in an estate, on the ground and attachments levied upon his interest in that it was induced by fraud, the fact that the his father's lands in this state. Judgments in master in certain instances accepted the testimony of those witnesses who estimated the land rem were obtained, with orders for special at a greater value than other witnesses will not executions against the lands attached, but authorize a reversal, on the ground that the de- no sale was ever made. A personal judg. cree was not supported by the evidence as to ment was obtained against Edna Taylor upthe value of the real estate.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Appeal and on a note for $450, and personal service was Error, Cent. Dig. $$ 4006, 4007; Dec. Dig. s had upon her, and judgment obtained against 1018.*]

her in some of the suits, in which her hus9. DEEDS ($ 211*)-FRAUD-EVIDENCE-SUFFI- band was not served personally. A judgCIENCY.

ment by confession was obtained against apIn a suit to set aside a conveyance of complainant's interest in the estate of his father, pellee and his wife upon a judgment note evidence held sufficient to support a finding that for $3,800. No effort appears to have been it was procured by fraud.

made to collect any of these judgments by [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Deeds, Cent. a sale of property. In the fall of 1903 ap

Dig. $8 637–647; Dec. Dig. 8 211.*]

pellant contracted for the interest of his 10. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (8 450*) sister in the lands and personal estate of

PURCHASES FROM HEIRS BURDEN OF PROOF-GOOD FAITH.

their father, and agreed to pay her $14,000 Where a person who occupies a fiduciary therefor. He paid her $6,000 in cash, and relation, as an administrator, deals with the property in his care to his own advantage, the gave her bis note for $8,000, with an agreeburden is upon him, when the transaction is ment that if he would convey his sister a attacked for fraud, to prove that he acted in good title to the Iowa lands, she would surgood faith.

render to him the note. Appellant, learning [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Executors that appellee was in San Francisco, Cal., and Administrators, Cent. Dig: s8 1858–1876; entered into a correspondence with him, and

. ; Dec. Dig. $ 450.*]

in December, 1903, went to San Francisco Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County ; to see him. On December 3, 1903, in the city Frank D. Ramsay, Judge.

of San Francisco, appellee executed to apBill by Frank J. Taylor against Albert pellant, for the expressed consideration of C. Taylor. From a decree for complainant, $500, a quitclaim deed for all his interest defendant appeals. Affirmed.

in his father's lands in Illinois, particularly Appellee, Frank J. Taylor, and his mother, describing them. The deed recites that the Deborah Taylor, filed their bill in the circuit grantor conveys and assigns to the grantee, court of Henry county to set aside certain with full power to receive and receipt for deeds executed by the appellee to his brother, the same, all interest in the estate of John Albert C. Taylor, appellant, and for other H. Taylor, deceased. On the same day, for relief.

the expressed consideration of $2,000, apJohn H. Taylor, the father of appellant and pellee conveyed to appellant his undivided appellee, resided in Henry county, Ill., and one-fourth interest in his father's lands in died intestate June 4, 1898. He left sur- the state of Iowa. While not so recited in viving a widow, Deborah Taylor, who died the deeds, a part of the consideration for since this litigation was begun; a daughter, the conveyance was the agreement of appelMary E. Glyde, and three sons, appellant, lant to assume and pay all indebtedness of appellee, and James G. Taylor, his only heirs appellee and his wife, Edna (who had then

*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes.