Duquesne Security Co. v. Hodgens

Appellate Court of Illinois

Duquesne Security Co. v. Hodgens

182 Ill. App. 88, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 377

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 9, 1913

DocketGen. No. 18,360

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 Ill. App. 88 (Duquesne Security Co. v. Hodgens) 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

Duquesne Security Co. v. Hodgens, 182 Ill. App. 88, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 377 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 13*—when assignment of note must be averred. Assignee of a judgment note cannot recover thereon in his own name in the Municipal Court where the narr or statement of claim does not aver that the note was as; signed. 4. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 14*—burden of proving assignment of note sued on. Rule 23 of Municipal Court being an adoption of section 52 of the Practice Act, J. & A. If 8589, places the burden of proving a valid assignment of a promissory note upon the plaintiff when plaintiff’s title is denied by an affidavit of merits. 5. Appeal and error, § 1236*—when errors not waived by admissions in trial court. Fact counsel for plaintiff in error acquiesced in a statement made before the jury by counsel of defendant in error limiting the issues, held not to estop plaintiff in error from assigning error for failure of proof of other issues where such admission was not relied upon in the trial court.

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

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 13*—when assignment of note must be averred. Assignee of a judgment note cannot recover thereon in his own name in the Municipal Court where the narr or statement of claim does not aver that the note was as; signed. 4. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 14*—burden of proving assignment of note sued on. Rule 23 of Municipal Court being an adoption of section 52 of the Practice Act, J. & A. If 8589, places the burden of proving a valid assignment of a promissory note upon the plaintiff when plaintiff’s title is denied by an affidavit of merits. 5. Appeal and error, § 1236*—when errors not waived by admissions in trial court. Fact counsel for plaintiff in error acquiesced in a statement made before the jury by counsel of defendant in error limiting the issues, held not to estop plaintiff in error from assigning error for failure of proof of other issues where such admission was not relied upon in the trial court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Ill. App. 88, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duquesne-security-co-v-hodgens-illappct-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack