Case ID: ill-app_191/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Krause & Managan Lumber Company, Defendant in Error, v. Consolidated Adjustment Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,369.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Chables A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 8, 1915.
    Rehearing denied March 22, 1915,
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Krause & Managan Lumber Company, a corporation, against Consolidated Adjustment Company, a corporation, on a contract substantially like those considered in Pritz v. Consolidated Adjustment Co., 189 Ill. App. 287, and Baltimore Trust Co. v. Consolidated Adjustment Co., 190 Ill. App. 30.
    The ground of recovery alleged by plaintiff is defendant’s failure to perform the service which it contracted.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Courts, § 149
      
      —when decision in other actions on similar contracts followed. Contracts involved in Pritg v. Consolidated Adjustment Co., 189 111. App. 287, and Baltimore Trust Co. v. Consolidated Adjustment Co., 190 111. App. 30, examined and held substantially like the contract in suit and the decisions in those cases, in so far as applicable, reaffirmed.
    2. Contracts, § 323*—when default in performance warrants recovery. In an action on a contract, where the evidence justifies the finding of the jury that the defendant failed to give plaintiff the service which, under the contract, it agreed to give, whereby the object of the contract was defeated, the finding of the jury for the plaintiff will not be disturbed.
    3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim in fourth-class case sufficient. The statement of claim in a case of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago is sufficient if it shows the nature of the demand even though it does not designate the character of the action with technical accuracy.
    To reverse a judgment for plaintiff on the verdict of the jury, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
    Delavan B. Cole, for plaintiff in error.
    Harry A. Brossat, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.