Case ID: ill-app_188/html/0560-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dorothy Brockhaus by Margaret A. Brockhaus, Defendant in Error, v. Agnes B. Garner, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 18,903.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rueus P. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 7, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of the fourth class brought in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Dorothy Brockhaus, an infant, by Margaret A. Brockhaus, her next friend, against Agnes B. Garner to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the defendant. A statement of claim and demand for a jury trial were filed on behalf of the plaintiff, and on August 23, 1912, the defendant entered her general appearance and moved the court to require the plaintiff to file a more spec?" ’ statement of claim. This motion was allowed ar olaintiff was ruled to file a claim within five days, and m days within which to file "A August 26, 1912, a more nent of claim was filed on ’efendant failed to file her itember 4,1912, judgment efault for her failure to more specific statement defendant was allowed her affidavit of merits specific and sufficient behalf of the plaintiff, affidavit of merits, and ■ was entered against h file and for want of such affidavit of merits. On September 10, 1912, the defendant having failed to take any further steps in the case, a jury was impaneled to assess the damages of the plaintiff, and proceedings appear to have been then had resulting in a verdict and judgment against the defendant for three hundred dollars damages. Thereafter the defendant moved the court to vacate and set aside such judgment, which motion was overruled, and defendant then prosecuted this writ of error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13
      
      —sufficiency of affidavit to plaintiff’s statement of claim. Where a statement of claim of a minor plaintiff purported to be made by an agent and it was urged by the defendant that since an infant is without capacity to appoint an agent the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the cause of action or of the person of the plaintiff, and that no summons could properly issue against the defendant, held that the court had jurisdiction of defendant by her entering a general appearance, and that the informality, if any, in the affidavit did not operate to deprive the court of jurisdiction of the subject-matter.
    2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when objection to sufficiency of affidavit to statement of claim cannot be raised. Insufficiency of an affidavit to plaintiff’s statement of claim cannot be first raised after verdict and judgment to defeat a recovery upon a cause of action of which the .court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter.
    3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 19*—when entry of judgment by default irregular. In a fourth class action in the Municipal Court to recover personal injuries, where the defendant entered her general appearance but failed to file an affidavit of merits within the time allowed by the court, the entry of a judgment by default held irregn lar; the judgment should be nil dieit, or for want of plea.
    Charles Turner Brown, for plaintiff in error.
    Beach & Beach, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 30 —when irregularity in entering default judgment not ground for reversal. Irregularity in entering a judgment by default instead of a judgment nil dicit, or for want of plea, held not to require reversal of the judgment upon the merits.