
    Baltimore Trust Company, Appellee, v. Consolidated Adjustment Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 20,306.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 30, 1914.
    Statement of tlie Case.
    Action by Baltimore Trust Company against Consolidated Adjustment Company on a contract of guaranty. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Guabarty, § 13
      
      —when evidence' sustains finding as to happening of contingency. Where an adjustment company entered into a contract of guaranty with a client to collect within a certain time a certain sum from the claims listed with it or to refund the initial fee paid to it by the client, and the contract contained an alternative provision that the company might continue its service beyond the time mentioned until it could reasonably determine that an equitable adjustment of the claims listed could not be secured, held in an action for a breach of the guaranty that a finding of the jury that it had been reasonably determined that an adjustment of the claims could not be secured was sustained by the evidence.
    The contract involved in this case was substantially the same as that passed on by the Appellate Court in Pritz v. Consolidated Adjustment Co., 189 Ill. App. 287, and the material parts of the contract appear in the opinion filed in that case. On the question whether the defendant under the terms of the contract had the right to continue the service until it recovered the amount of the guaranty, the decision in the Pritz case, supra, was held conclusive.
    The contract in this case contains an alternative provision which was not in the Pritz contract and is to the effect that the services should be continued “until said company shall reasonably determine that an equitable adjustment of the claims listed hereunder cannot be secured.?? Evidence was submitted to the jury on the question whether such contingency had happened and the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff.
    Delavan B. Cole, for appellant.
    Musgrave, Oppenheim & Lee, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.  