Case ID: ill-app_188/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henrietta G. Daniels, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,225.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. LaBuy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 7, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Henrietta Gr. Daniels against Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company and Chicago, Burlington • & Quincy Railroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries claimed to have been occasioned by the negligence of defendants. The amended statement of claim filed by plaintiff December 12, 1912, alleged that the injuries complained of were' sustained January 23, 1911. Defendants’ affidavit of merits denied that plaintiff sustained the injuries complained of on or about January 23, 1911, and averred that on or about December 31,1909, plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendants’ trains and in alighting therefrom she slipped and fell, and further averred that any canse of action that may have accrued to her was barred by the statute of limitations. A trial by the court resulted in a finding and judgment against the defendants for three hundred and fifty dollars. To reverse the judgment, defendants prosecute a writ of error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Limitation of actions, § 115
      
      —burden of proof. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it Is upon the party pleading it.
    J. A. Connell and S. F. Blanc, for plaintiffs in error.
    Far,t, J. Walker, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.