Phoenix Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Frisch

Appellate Court of Illinois

Phoenix Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Frisch

29 Ill. App. 265, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 110

DecidedNovember 23, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Ill. App. 265 (Phoenix Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Frisch) 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

Phoenix Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Frisch, 29 Ill. App. 265, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 110 (Ill. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Conger, J.

This is an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained a special count upon an. insurance policy, and also the common counts. To this declaration appellant filed a general demurrer, which the court overruled, and thereupon appellant filed a plea of the general issue; but this was, hv leave of court, withdrawn by appellant; and refusing to plead further, a judgment by default was taken against it, evidence heard by the court, and appellee’s damages assessed at the sum of 81,067.81, upon which judgment was rendered against appellant

The errors assigned upon the record are:

1st. The court erred in rendering judgment against appellant.

2d. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration.

Without determining the sufficiency of the sjiecial count, there can he no question that the common counts were good, and it is well settled that a general demurrer can not be sustained to a declaration containing one good count, however many bad ones there may be: Reece v. Smith, 94 Ill. 362, and authorities therein cited.

The evidence heard by the qourt upon the assessment of damages is not preserved in the record, and wo must therefore presume it was sufficient to support the finding of the court. Motsinger v. Coleman, 16 Ill. 71.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Conger, J.

This is an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained a special count upon an. insurance policy, and also the common counts. To this declaration appellant filed a general demurrer, which the court overruled, and thereupon appellant filed a plea of the general issue; but this was, hv leave of court, withdrawn by appellant; and refusing to plead further, a judgment by default was taken against it, evidence heard by the court, and appellee’s damages assessed at the sum of 81,067.81, upon which judgment was rendered against appellant

The errors assigned upon the record are:

1st. The court erred in rendering judgment against appellant.

2d. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration.

Without determining the sufficiency of the sjiecial count, there can he no question that the common counts were good, and it is well settled that a general demurrer can not be sustained to a declaration containing one good count, however many bad ones there may be: Reece v. Smith, 94 Ill. 362, and authorities therein cited.

The evidence heard by the qourt upon the assessment of damages is not preserved in the record, and wo must therefore presume it was sufficient to support the finding of the court. Motsinger v. Coleman, 16 Ill. 71.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ill. App. 265, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoenix-insurance-co-of-hartford-v-frisch-illappct-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack