Streff v. Colteaux

Decided April 27, 1896

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1896-04-27

1. Signature—By Rubber Stamp.—The court is not aware of any authority to the effect that one may not sign his name by an impression made with a rubber stamp. It is ordinarily the act of making a paper one’s own that is important, rather than the manner of doing it. 2. Pleading—Common Counts—When Sufficient.—There is a plain distinction between actions on executory contracts and actions on contracts fully performed, so that nothing remains to be done but to pay money due thereon; in the latter case common counts are sufficient. 3. Appellate Court Practice—Matters to be Abstracted.—Matters relied upon to reverse the judgment complained of must be abstracted.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1915

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-04-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Waterman

¶1delivebed the opinion oe the Coubt.

¶2In this action the plaintiff below filed a declaration containing three special counts in assumpsit, the second of which is, substantially, the common quantum meruit count. To this declaration the defendant below filed a special demurrer, which was in his absence overruled.

¶3Thereafter, also in the absence of the defendant below, a trial, verdict and judgment for the plaintiff were had.

¶4It is said that the declaration was signed only by an impression thereon of the names of plaintiffs’ attorneys, made by a rubber stamp.

¶5We are not aware of any authority to the effect that one may not so sign his name. It is ordinarly the act of making a paper one’s own that is important, rather than the manner of so doing. Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 27, p. 781.

¶6The demurrer to the declaration was properly sustained and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.