¶1dissenting: I regard this decision as in direct conflict with that of the Supreme Court in Gillman case, 268 Ill. 305, which I do not understand has ever been overruled. My views on this subject are expressed in a dissenting opinion in the case of Sher v. Robinson, 220 Ill. App. 365.
221 Ill. App. 358
Thon v. Jackson
Decided June 24, 1921
Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1921-06-24
<p>1. Municipal Court of Chicago — necessity -for allegation of due care in statement of claim. In a tort action of the fourth class in the municipal court, a judgment for plaintiff on the merits, on issues joined, will not be overthrown because plaintiff did not allege in his statement of claim that he was, at the time of the injury complained of, in the exercise of ordinary care.</p> <p>2. Municipal Court of Chicago — requisites of statement of claim. The Municipal Court Act does not require that, in an action of the fourth class, in tort, all the material or ultimate facts of a case should be stated or pleaded in plaintiff’s statement of claim.</p> <p>Barnes, P. J., dissenting.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1953
1 state decisions
Relies on Gillman v. Chicago Railways Co. · 220 Ill. App. 365 - Sher v. Robinson
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1921-06-24
View the full empirical analysis of this case →