Case ID: ill-app_197/html/0475-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Baker", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrews Allen and John A. Garcia, copartners, and Allen & Garcia Company, Defendants in Error, v. Arthur H. Swett, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,508.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John C. Work, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 17, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Suit by Andrews Allen & John A. Garcia, copartners, and Allen & Garcia Company, a corporation, plaintiffs, against Arthur H. Swett, defendant, to recover for services rendered the defendant. On judgment for the plaintiffs, the defendant brings error.
    Suit was brought January 13, 1914, by Allen and Garcia, copartners as Allen & Garcia, against A. H. Swett. March 16, 1914, it was ordered that all papers and proceedings be and they thereby were amended by making Allen & Garcia Company, a corporation, co-plaintiff in the action. Garcia, a mining engineer, was asked by Swett to examine coal land in Iowa and make a report. He did so, and charged for his services and expenses $338.20, for which sum the plaintiff had judgment.- The Lucas Coal & Supply Company, a corporation of which Swett was president and treasurer and a director, was the owner of the mine, and the contention of the defendant was that the Lucas Company and not he was liable for the services rendered.
    Castle, Williams, Long & Castle, for plaintiff in error.
    Underwood & Smyser, for defendants in error; Charles R. Young and Arthur A. Basse, of counsel.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    Appeal and error, § 1714*—when question of misjoinder of parties waived. Where, on review on a writ of error, it does not appear that the plaintiff in error objected in the trial court on the ground of misjoinder of the plaintiffs below, and the propriety of such joinder is not questioned by any assignment of error, nor argued in the brief of the plaintiff in error except in his reply brief, such misjoinder, if any, must be considered as waived.
   Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.