Staley v. Snow

Appellate Court of Illinois

Staley v. Snow

209 Ill. App. 452, 1918 Ill. App. LEXIS 666

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 31, 1918

DocketGen. No. 23,033

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 Ill. App. 452 (Staley v. Snow) 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

Staley v. Snow, 209 Ill. App. 452, 1918 Ill. App. LEXIS 666 (Ill. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Limitation of actions, § 11*—what is test in determining whether ten or five-year statute applies as to contract. In ascertaining whether the ten or five-year Statute of Limitations is applicable in an action on a contract, the test is whether the contract sued on was in writing or oral, and if the promise is in fact, oral, it is immaterial that it arose in the first instance out of a written contract. 3. Limitation of actions, § 12*—when contract oral and governed by five-year statute. An action to recover purchase money paid under a contract which contains no specific promise to return the purchase money, rests upon an implied promise which, being oral, is governed by the five-year limitation. 4. Appeai, and ebbob, § 1236*—when not considered on appeal that damages were assessed on theory that action was for return of purchase money. Where the statement of claim does not clearly state the breach of contract relied on, but does not purport to be for the return of purchase money paid thereunder, and defendant does not seek a better statement and no propositions of law are submitted, and the damages assessed, though equivalent to the amount paid in by plaintiff, are also the amount which, prima facie, he was entitled to recover as damages for the breach, it will not be held on appeal that the damages were assessed on the theory that the action was for the return of the purchase money.

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

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Limitation of actions, § 11*—what is test in determining whether ten or five-year statute applies as to contract. In ascertaining whether the ten or five-year Statute of Limitations is applicable in an action on a contract, the test is whether the contract sued on was in writing or oral, and if the promise is in fact, oral, it is immaterial that it arose in the first instance out of a written contract. 3. Limitation of actions, § 12*—when contract oral and governed by five-year statute. An action to recover purchase money paid under a contract which contains no specific promise to return the purchase money, rests upon an implied promise which, being oral, is governed by the five-year limitation. 4. Appeai, and ebbob, § 1236*—when not considered on appeal that damages were assessed on theory that action was for return of purchase money. Where the statement of claim does not clearly state the breach of contract relied on, but does not purport to be for the return of purchase money paid thereunder, and defendant does not seek a better statement and no propositions of law are submitted, and the damages assessed, though equivalent to the amount paid in by plaintiff, are also the amount which, prima facie, he was entitled to recover as damages for the breach, it will not be held on appeal that the damages were assessed on the theory that the action was for the return of the purchase money.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 Ill. App. 452, 1918 Ill. App. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staley-v-snow-illappct-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack