Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Ill. 562

Wise v. Chaney

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1844

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1844-12-15

Assumpsit, in the Madison Circuit Court, brought by the appellee against the appellants. The cause was heard before the Hon. James Shields and a jury, at the October term 1844, when a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff below for $300. Judgment on the verdict. The case is sufficiently stated in the Opinion of the Court.

Decided 1844-12-15

¶1The Opinion of the Court was delivered by

Treat J.

¶2This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Chaney against Sebastian Wise and others.

¶3The declaration counts on an agreement made between the parties, by the terms of which the plaintiff was to furnish certain materials, and do the carpenter’s work of a church, for which the defendants were to pay him at specified rates. It then alleges a part performance on the part of the plaintiff, and concludes with an averment, that the plaintiff was presented by the defendants from completing the contract, whereby he has sustained damages.

¶4The defendants pleaded «ora assumpsit, and a special plea of payment.

¶5The cause was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff for three hundred dollars. The defendants entered a motion for a new trial. The Court denied the motion, and rendered a judgment on the verdict. To reverse that judgment, the defendants prosecute an appeal to this Court.

¶6The refusal of the Circuit Court to grant a new trial is assigned for error. There is a bill of exceptions containing all of the evidence introduced on the trial. The testimony is voluminous, and will not be here stated. It has been attentively considered. It is sufficient to remark concerning it, that it tends to prove the plaintiff’s case, with the exception of the allegation, that he was prevented by the defendants from completing the contract. There is a total failure in this particular. By his declaration, the plaintiff does not claim to recover for materials furnished, or labor done in pursuance, of the contract; but he seeks to recover the damage he has sustained, in consequence of not being permitted to perform the contract. The act of the defendants, in preventing the plaintiff from going on with the contract, is the foundation of the action. The averment in question is therefore a material one, without proof of which, the plaintiff has no right to recover. Failing to sustain this averment, the verdict of the jury was unauthorized, and the Court ought to have set it aside and awarded a new trial.

¶7The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

¶8Judgment reversed.

/6/ill/562 · .json · Public domain