Case ID: ad_183/html/0902-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Farrell, Respondent, v. Hugo Heumann, Appellant.
    Although the averment is that the glass which struck plaintiff fell from the window of “ an upper story,” without inserting the words “ of defendant’s aforesaid premises,” yet the following averments that said glass had been in a defective condition and that defendant had negligently and willfully suffered and permitted the said dangerous and defective condition to continue, clearly connect such upper story with defendant’s premises, in front of which plaintiff was lawfully walking. An omission to pray for judgment is not a ground to demur. The interlocutory judgment is, therefore, affirmed, however, with but one bill of costs to respondent.
   Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.