Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

189 Ill. App. 36

Fritsch v. Junius

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided October 8, 1914

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1914-10-08

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Assumpsit, action of, § 89*—when evidence insufficient to sustain joint judgment for labor and materials furnished. In an action against three defendants for work and materials alleged to have .been furnished at the request of one of the defendants on a building owned by the two other defendants, held that a judgment against all the defendants could not be sustained for the reason there was no evidence to show a joint contract or to show any joint liability under the Mechanic’s Lien Act, J. & A. ¶¶ 7139 et seq., it appearing that the defendant alleged to have requested the work was an employee of a construction company and that he merely requested the plaintiff to submit an estimate of the work to the company.</p> <p>2. Judgment, § 190*—effect when erroneous as to one joint defendant. A judgment against three defendants which is erroneous as to one is erroneous in toto.</p> <p>3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 26*—when statement of facts or stenographic report sufficient. A statement of facts or stenographic report held to substantially comply with paragraph 6 of section 23 of the Municipal Court Act, J. & A. ¶ 3335, where the certificate of the trial judge stated over his signature that it was “a full, true and correct statement of all the facts and evidence introduced or offered by either or any of the parties in the above entitled cause, and all questions of law involved in the case, and of all the proceedings had before me in said cause,” and the document to which the certificate was appended was in the form of a stenographic report of the proceedings at the trial, was certified to contain all the evidence and showed oh its face the objections made and the rulings of the court therein, and to such document was attached a statement of the rulings of the court upon the several motions made before and after the finding, and the propositions of law marked “held” and “refused.”</p> <p>4. Municipal, Court of Chicago, § 26*—judge authorised to extend time for presenting statement of facts. Under paragraph 6 of section 23 of the Municipal Court Act, J. & A. ¶ 3335, any judge of that court may, within -the thirty days allowed for presenting a statement of facts or stenographic report, enter an order extending the time for presenting the same to the trial judge.</p>

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1914-10-08

Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Municipal, Court of Chicago, § 26*—judge authorised to extend time for presenting statement of facts. Under paragraph 6 of section 23 of the Municipal Court Act, J. & A. ¶ 3335, any judge of that court may, within -the thirty days allowed for presenting a statement of facts or stenographic report, enter an order extending the time for presenting the same to the trial judge.
/189/illapp/36 · .json · Public domain