Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dever", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry B. Lusch, Appellant, v. Charles J. Rittenhouse and Walter Rittenhouse, Executors, Appellees.
    Gen. No. 22,757.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    
      Injunction—when contract by surety on bond relating to appeal includes review by writ of error. Where the surety upon an injunction bond agreed by a certain contract upon consideration of the filing of suggestion of damages on dissolution of the injunction instead of commencing an action on the injunction bond that he •would abide by "the final determination of said suggestion of damages by said Superior Court, or upon' final determination of any appeal that may be taken from any award that may be rendered * * * by said Superior Court,” held that the word “appeal” as so used embraced a writ of error by means of which a final determination of the suggestion of damages or award was reached.
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Harry B. Lusch, plaintiff, against Charles J. Rittenhouse and Walter Rittenhouse, executors of the estate of Moses F. Rittenhouse, deceased, defendants, to recover upon a certain contract by letter signed by the decedent. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
    Frederick W. Snider, for appellant.
    Bulkley, More & Tallmadge, for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.