Case ID: ill-app_207/html/0051-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

National Printing & Engraving Company (a corporation), Winterburn Print Branch, Defendant in Error, v. Samuel L. Winternitz, trading as The Waterdrome Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,156.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Caverly, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by the National Printing & Engraving Company (a corporation), Winterburn Print Branch, plaintiff, against Samuel L. Winternitz, trading as The Waterdrome Company, defendant, for the purchase price of goods. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $217.40, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Corporations, § 516
      
       — when evidence shows business not incorporated. In an action to recover the purchase price of goods, evidence held to show that defendant was owner of the business by which the goods were purchased, that he was doing business under such name and that the business was not incorporated.
    2. Municipal Court op Chicago, § 30* — when granting of leave to amend statement of claim is not ground for reversal. The fact that though leave was given to amend the statement of claim in a case of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago, which named several defendants who were not served with process, no amendment was actually made, is not ground for reversal.
    3. Appeal and error, § 471* — when objection to statement elicited on cross-examination may not be raised. One who elicits a statement from a witness on cross-examination and does not object thereto cannot raise the objection on appeal.
    William Friedman, for plaintiff in error.
    P. F. Murray, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.