Case ID: ill-app_201/html/0529-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Deddo, Defendant in Error, v. Michael Volpe, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,246.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Contracts, § 129
      
      —when evidence insufficient to show illegality of. The repudiation by the defendant of a contract entered into with the plaintiff whereby the latter agreed to raise the defendant’s house, held not justified on the ground of illegality, because an ordinance prevented the performance of the work if certain alterations were not made, which were not included in the contract, in the absence of a showing that it was intended that the work should be done without compliance with the ordinance and in the absence of any proof of the ordinance.
    2. Contracts, § 98*—when evidence insufficient to show fraud in procuring execution of. In an action for the breach by the defendant of a contract, whereby the plaintiff agreed to raise the defendant’s house, evidence held not to show that the defendant had been induced to enter into the contract by fraud.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Perrt L. Persons, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 18, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Michael Deddo, plaintiff, against Michael Volpe, defendant, for breach of contract. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    Cairoli Gigliotti, for plaintiff in error.
    Thomas H. Maddock and Jacob H. Jaffe, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI lo XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 4 —when judge of another court may sit in Municipal Court. A judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago held not illegal because it was entered by one not a judge of that court, where the placita showed the presiding judge to have been a “judge of the County Court of Lake County, Illinois, holding a branch of the Municipal Court of Chicago at the reguest of the judges of the said Municipal Court,” as such authority is expressly conferred by the Municipal Court Act, sec. 13 (J. & A. ¶ 3325).

4. Trial, § 45*—when prejudice and Mas not exhibited by trial judge. Record on appeal in an action for breach of contract, held not to sustain a contention that prejudice and bias were exhibited by the trial court.