Case ID: ill-app_186/html/0183-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Brown", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur T. Vreeland, Plaintiff in Error, v. Warren Vreeland, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,046.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 4, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Arthur T. Vreeland against Warren Vreeland in the Municipal Court of Chicago. The court ruled that plaintiff’s statement of claim was insufficient to sustain an action. Plaintiff declining to take advantage of leave to file an amended or more specific statement, elected to “to stand by his original statement of claim.” Thereupon the court entered a judgment of nil capiat and for costs against him. To reverse the judgment, plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error.
    J. Warner Beckstrom, for plaintiff in error.
    William A. Morrow, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13 —when statement of claim too vague to state a cause of action. A statement of claim as follows: “Plaintiff’s claim is upon the contract hereto attached for money had and received by defendant, to-wit, $1000, received by defendant as one of the heirs of John J. Vreeland, deceased, by virtue of a settlement of the suit to contest John J. Vreeland’s will; said sum is one-sixth of the amount received by defendant,” held too vague to state a cause of action, in that it did not aver from whom defendant received the money or why and when it was received, and there was no intervening connection between it and the contract.