Martin v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Martin v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co.

194 Ill. App. 480, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 525

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided October 5, 1915·No. Gen. No. 20,652·Published

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Pleading, § 434*—what is effect of allegation under a videlicet. Where an allegation in a declaration is made under a videlicet, the date is immaterial. 4. Appeal and errob, § 1526*—when instruction harmless. An instruction which inaccurately states the date when the contract sued upon was made, as a result of a similarly inaccurate allegation in the declaration, under a videlicet, though ordinarily reversible error, becomes harmless where the evidence will sustain no other verdict.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Pleading, § 434*—what is effect of allegation under a videlicet. Where an allegation in a declaration is made under a videlicet, the date is immaterial. 4. Appeal and errob, § 1526*—when instruction harmless. An instruction which inaccurately states the date when the contract sued upon was made, as a result of a similarly inaccurate allegation in the declaration, under a videlicet, though ordinarily reversible error, becomes harmless where the evidence will sustain no other verdict.

Martin v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co., 194 Ill. App. 480, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 525 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

194 Ill. App. 480 (Martin v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.