Baker v. Mayer

Appellate Court of Illinois

Baker v. Mayer

163 Ill. App. 391, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 451

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 5, 1911

DocketGen. No. 15,777

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 163 Ill. App. 391 (Baker v. Mayer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Mayer, 163 Ill. App. 391, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 451 (Ill. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is sufficient in deciding this case to say that the plaintiff below, defendant in error here, so far as appears by the “Statement of Facts” in the Transcript of the Record, failed to show any liability of the defendant to him. According to the testimony of all parties heard, including the plaintiff himself, he was hired by one Perry to do work on Mayer’s premises. But the evidence also showed without contradiction that Perry had made a contract with Mayer for the work done and had been paid most of the contract price before the defendant knew that the plaintiff was working on the premises, and all of it before the plaintiff asked him for money for his work.

The suit is not brought under section 28 of the Mechanic’s Lien Act, and if it were could not be effective, for the reasons stated.

There was no employment of the plaintiff by the defendant shown, and no liability to be enforced. The cause was tried below without a jury.

The judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and a judgment of nil capiat and for costs in both courts will be entered here against the plaintiff.

Reversed and judgment here.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Me. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is sufficient in deciding this case to say that the plaintiff below, defendant in error here, so far as appears by the “Statement of Facts” in the Transcript of the Record, failed to show any liability of the defendant to him. According to the testimony of all parties heard, including the plaintiff himself, he was hired by one Perry to do work on Mayer’s premises. But the evidence also showed without contradiction that Perry had made a contract with Mayer for the work done and had been paid most of the contract price before the defendant knew that the plaintiff was working on the premises, and all of it before the plaintiff asked him for money for his work.

The suit is not brought under section 28 of the Mechanic’s Lien Act, and if it were could not be effective, for the reasons stated.

There was no employment of the plaintiff by the defendant shown, and no liability to be enforced. The cause was tried below without a jury.

The judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed and a judgment of nil capiat and for costs in both courts will be entered here against the plaintiff.

Reversed and judgment here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 Ill. App. 391, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-mayer-illappct-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack