Walker v. Kesner

Appellate Court of Illinois

Walker v. Kesner

86 Ill. App. 244, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 219

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 14, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 Ill. App. 244 (Walker v. Kesner) 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

Walker v. Kesner, 86 Ill. App. 244, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 219 (Ill. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

Without discussing appellant’s possible right of recovery against appellees in another form of action upon the facts disclosed by the declaration, it is enough to say that it appears from the declaration, and from each count thereof, that appellees did not enter into any covenant whatever with appellant, and hence that the declaration in covenant was bad. Here the defendant has not engaged by deed to perform the covenants, and consequently covenant will not lie. Butnett v. Lynch, 5 Barn. & C. 589; Moore v. House, 64 Ill. 162; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. v. Beckemeier, 72 Ill. 267; Hancock v. Yunker, 83 Ill. 208; Neufeld v. Beidler, 37 Ill. App. 34; McCormick v. Seeberger, 73 Ill. App. 87, Seeberger v. McCormick, 178 Ill. 404; Murphy v. Kohlsaat, 68 Ill. App. 579.

The learned trial judge properly sustained the demurrers.

The tendency of the courts may be toward a greater liberality in matters of pleading in order that substantial justice may be speedily done, but our courts have not as yet so far departed from common law rules of pleading as to permit a recovery in covenant under a declaration which sets up a breach of implied warranty or a tort.

Our statute of amendments is broad and liberal and is liberally interpreted. There was nothing to prevent a curing of the error in pleading after the demurrers had been sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

Without discussing appellant’s possible right of recovery against appellees in another form of action upon the facts disclosed by the declaration, it is enough to say that it appears from the declaration, and from each count thereof, that appellees did not enter into any covenant whatever with appellant, and hence that the declaration in covenant was bad. Here the defendant has not engaged by deed to perform the covenants, and consequently covenant will not lie. Butnett v. Lynch, 5 Barn. & C. 589; Moore v. House, 64 Ill. 162; R. R. I. & St. L. R. R. v. Beckemeier, 72 Ill. 267; Hancock v. Yunker, 83 Ill. 208; Neufeld v. Beidler, 37 Ill. App. 34; McCormick v. Seeberger, 73 Ill. App. 87, Seeberger v. McCormick, 178 Ill. 404; Murphy v. Kohlsaat, 68 Ill. App. 579.

The learned trial judge properly sustained the demurrers.

The tendency of the courts may be toward a greater liberality in matters of pleading in order that substantial justice may be speedily done, but our courts have not as yet so far departed from common law rules of pleading as to permit a recovery in covenant under a declaration which sets up a breach of implied warranty or a tort.

Our statute of amendments is broad and liberal and is liberally interpreted. There was nothing to prevent a curing of the error in pleading after the demurrers had been sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 Ill. App. 244, 1899 Ill. App. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-kesner-illappct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack