Streff v. Colteaux

64 Ill. App. 179, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 871
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided April 27, 1896·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivebed the opinion oe the Coubt.

In this action the plaintiff below filed a declaration containing three special counts in assumpsit, the second of which is, substantially, the common quantum meruit count. To this declaration the defendant below filed a special demurrer, which was in his absence overruled.

Thereafter, also in the absence of the defendant below, a trial, verdict and judgment for the plaintiff were had.

It is said that the declaration was signed only by an impression thereon of the names of plaintiffs’ attorneys, made by a rubber stamp.

We are not aware of any authority to the effect that one may not so sign his name. It is ordinarly the act of making a paper one’s own that is important, rather than the manner of so doing. Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 27, p. 781.

The demurrer to the declaration was properly sustained and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Streff v. Colteaux, 64 Ill. App. 179, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 871 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

64 Ill. App. 179 (Streff v. Colteaux) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cummings v. State Ex Rel. Wallower
1915 OK 334 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Jennings v. Schwartz
144 P. 39 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
Deep River National Bank's Appeal From Commissioners
47 A. 675 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1900)