Mahony v. Van Winkle

Appellate Court of Illinois

Mahony v. Van Winkle

185 Ill. App. 609, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1184

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 31, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,189

StatusPublished

This text of 185 Ill. App. 609 (Mahony v. Van Winkle) 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

Mahony v. Van Winkle, 185 Ill. App. 609, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1184 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Libel and slander, § 100*—when count in declaration demurrage. In an action for libel, a count in the declaration alleging that the libel accused plaintiff of asking payment of a bribe as a building inspector, held demurrable for the reason that it contained no inducement or colloquium, and lacked the averments that there was an office in the city of building inspector; that the plaintiff was such inspector and had such duties to perform; that the building was in the city and that a permit was necessary; and that the city had provided by ordinance rules relating to the erection or alteration of buildings, and there was no averment that any fee was required for a permit. 2. Libel and slander, § 96*—necessity of inducement. Where a count is totally lacking in the inducement, the requirement of an inducement cannot be supplied in those portions of the count called the innuendos. 3. Limitation oe actions, § 67*—when amended count in declaration does not set up new cause of action. An amended count in an action for libel does not set up a new cause of action where the cause of action stated in both the original and amended counts refers to the publication of the same alleged libelous matter.

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

Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Libel and slander, § 100*—when count in declaration demurrage. In an action for libel, a count in the declaration alleging that the libel accused plaintiff of asking payment of a bribe as a building inspector, held demurrable for the reason that it contained no inducement or colloquium, and lacked the averments that there was an office in the city of building inspector; that the plaintiff was such inspector and had such duties to perform; that the building was in the city and that a permit was necessary; and that the city had provided by ordinance rules relating to the erection or alteration of buildings, and there was no averment that any fee was required for a permit. 2. Libel and slander, § 96*—necessity of inducement. Where a count is totally lacking in the inducement, the requirement of an inducement cannot be supplied in those portions of the count called the innuendos. 3. Limitation oe actions, § 67*—when amended count in declaration does not set up new cause of action. An amended count in an action for libel does not set up a new cause of action where the cause of action stated in both the original and amended counts refers to the publication of the same alleged libelous matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Ill. App. 609, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahony-v-van-winkle-illappct-1914.