Levy v. Swift & Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Levy v. Swift & Co.

201 Ill. App. 454

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 10, 1916

DocketGen. No. 21,462

StatusPublished

This text of 201 Ill. App. 454 (Levy v. Swift & Co.) 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

Levy v. Swift & Co., 201 Ill. App. 454 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim insufficient., A statement of claim alleging that damage resulted to the plaintiff from an act of the defendant, without an averment of negligence when the act itself does not indicate negligence, does not state a cause of action. 2. Negligence, § 187*—when evidence insufficient to show. In an action for damages alleged to have been caused by the bursting of a pipe belonging to the defendant and the precipitation of hot lard upon the plaintiff and his team while driving along a highway, evidence held not to show any negligence on the part of the defendant. 3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 31*—when judgment reversed. Where a statement of claim does not allege a cause of action, a judgment for the plaintiff will be reversed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim insufficient., A statement of claim alleging that damage resulted to the plaintiff from an act of the defendant, without an averment of negligence when the act itself does not indicate negligence, does not state a cause of action. 2. Negligence, § 187*—when evidence insufficient to show. In an action for damages alleged to have been caused by the bursting of a pipe belonging to the defendant and the precipitation of hot lard upon the plaintiff and his team while driving along a highway, evidence held not to show any negligence on the part of the defendant. 3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 31*—when judgment reversed. Where a statement of claim does not allege a cause of action, a judgment for the plaintiff will be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 Ill. App. 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-swift-co-illappct-1916.