Sylvester v. Hall

Appellate Court of Illinois

Sylvester v. Hall

47 Ill. App. 304, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 87

DecidedMarch 3, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 47 Ill. App. 304 (Sylvester v. Hall) 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

Sylvester v. Hall, 47 Ill. App. 304, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 87 (Ill. Ct. App. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Phillips.

The demurrer was general, and the first and third counts are good in substance, and as to them the demurrer should have been overruled. The second count does not aver1 that any covenant was made, that the coal had not been mined from said land, and hence it stated no covenant as existing, the breach of which is alleged. The fourth count avers no covenant on the part of plaintiffs as to the manner in which the mining was to be done and performed by the Frizzel Coal Mining Company, and hence, under the averments of that count, it does not appear that any liability could exist against plaintiffs for the manner in which that company mined the coal. The fifth count is like the fourth, with the further averment that representations were made without averring any covenant on the part of the plaintiff. It was not error to sustain the demurrer to the second, fourth and fifth counts of the declaration. For the error in sustaining the demurrer to the first and third counts, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Phillips.

The demurrer was general, and the first and third counts are good in substance, and as to them the demurrer should have been overruled. The second count does not aver1 that any covenant was made, that the coal had not been mined from said land, and hence it stated no covenant as existing, the breach of which is alleged. The fourth count avers no covenant on the part of plaintiffs as to the manner in which the mining was to be done and performed by the Frizzel Coal Mining Company, and hence, under the averments of that count, it does not appear that any liability could exist against plaintiffs for the manner in which that company mined the coal. The fifth count is like the fourth, with the further averment that representations were made without averring any covenant on the part of the plaintiff. It was not error to sustain the demurrer to the second, fourth and fifth counts of the declaration. For the error in sustaining the demurrer to the first and third counts, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Ill. App. 304, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sylvester-v-hall-illappct-1893.