Case ID: ill-app_211/html/0248-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Lawson, Defendant in Error, v. A. Wilberforce Williams, sued as A. Wilerfore Williams, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 23,453.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Mary Lawson, plaintiff, against A. Wilberforce Williams, sued as A. Wilerfore Williams, defendant, to recover money claimed to be due plaintiff. From a verdict for plaintiff for a tortious conversion of her property and a judgment thereon, defendant brings error. The bill of exceptions having been stricken, review was had upon the common-law record.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13
      
       — when statement of claim is insufficient to support verdict in tort for conversion. A statement of claim alleging that plaintiff’s claim is “for money due and received by defendant from moneys withdrawn” from a certain bank during a certain period and that defendant had frequently promised to pay plaintiff “the moneys so due her from withdrawals made by him from said bank,” followed by an averment that “though often requested defendant has not paid plaintiff said money * * * but has fraudulently and feloniously withdrawn said moneys from said bank and converted same to his own use,” although possibly good as in assumpsit if the verdict were responsive to that theory, will not support a verdict in tort for conversion as it does not set forth the elements of a tort.
    W. M. Farmer, for plaintiff in error.
    William S. Stahl, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.