Reece v. Smith

Illinois Supreme Court

Reece v. Smith

94 Ill. 362

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 94 Ill. 362 (Reece v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reece v. Smith, 94 Ill. 362 (Ill. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an action of assumpsit by appellee against appellants. The declaration contains three counts. The first count is on what is therein designated and described as a promissory note. The second count is the consolidated money counts; and the third count is upon an account stated.

Appellants demurred generally to the declaration. The circuit court overruled the demurrer, and appellants, electing to stand by their demurrer and refusing to plead'over, judgment was thereupon given in favor of appellee. From that judgment appellants took the case, by appeal, to the Appellate Court of the Third District, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. The amount of the judgment being over $1000, the case is brought to this court by appeal.

The only question is, was the demurrer to the declaration properly overruled?

Waiving the question as to the sufficiency of the first or special count, no objection has been pointed out, and we are aware of no objection that can be taken to the second and third counts. We assume, therefore, that those counts are sufficient.

No doctrine has been longer settled or more constantly adhered to by this court than that a general demurrer can not be sustained to a declaration which contains one good count, however many bad counts it may contain. Lusk v. Cook, Breese (Beecher’s ed.) 84; Cowles et al. v. Litchfield, 2 Scam. 356; Israel v. Reynolds et al. 11 Ill. 218; Governor, etc. v. Ridgway et al. 12 id. 14; Anderson et al. v. Richards et al. 22 id. 217: Tomlin v. Tonica and Petersburg Railroad Co. 23 id. 429; Barber v. Whitney et al. 29 id. 439; Nickerson et al. v. Sheldon, 33 id. 372.

There s no bill of exceptions showing what evidence was heard upon the assessment of damages, so no question can thereupon be raised in this court. Motsinger v. Coleman, 16 Ill. 71.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an action of assumpsit by appellee against appellants. The declaration contains three counts. The first count is on what is therein designated and described as a promissory note. The second count is the consolidated money counts; and the third count is upon an account stated.

Appellants demurred generally to the declaration. The circuit court overruled the demurrer, and appellants, electing to stand by their demurrer and refusing to plead'over, judgment was thereupon given in favor of appellee. From that judgment appellants took the case, by appeal, to the Appellate Court of the Third District, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. The amount of the judgment being over $1000, the case is brought to this court by appeal.

The only question is, was the demurrer to the declaration properly overruled?

Waiving the question as to the sufficiency of the first or special count, no objection has been pointed out, and we are aware of no objection that can be taken to the second and third counts. We assume, therefore, that those counts are sufficient.

No doctrine has been longer settled or more constantly adhered to by this court than that a general demurrer can not be sustained to a declaration which contains one good count, however many bad counts it may contain. Lusk v. Cook, Breese (Beecher’s ed.) 84; Cowles et al. v. Litchfield, 2 Scam. 356; Israel v. Reynolds et al. 11 Ill. 218; Governor, etc. v. Ridgway et al. 12 id. 14; Anderson et al. v. Richards et al. 22 id. 217: Tomlin v. Tonica and Petersburg Railroad Co. 23 id. 429; Barber v. Whitney et al. 29 id. 439; Nickerson et al. v. Sheldon, 33 id. 372.

There s no bill of exceptions showing what evidence was heard upon the assessment of damages, so no question can thereupon be raised in this court. Motsinger v. Coleman, 16 Ill. 71.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 Ill. 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reece-v-smith-ill-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack