Case Name: Alcazar Amusement Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Paul Pereira, Defendant in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1915-10-05
Citations: 194 Ill. App. 507
Docket Number: Gen. No. 20,188
Parties: Alcazar Amusement Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Paul Pereira, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 194
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
Alcazar Amusement Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Paul Pereira, Defendant in Error.
Gen. No. 20,188.
(Not to foe reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Prin-Divm-B, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed October 5, 1915.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Contracts, § 53 —when invalid. A written contract signed by one who is not named in the body of the instrument as one of the contracting parties is invalid.
Statement of the Case.
Action by the Alcazar Amusement Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Paul Pereira, defendant, to recover on a written contract which did not, in the body of the instrument, name the defendant as a party, though he signed it. The defendant entered an appearance, and his motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was allowed.
To reverse a judgment for defendant for costs, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.
George C. Otto and Frank P. Leffingwell, for plaintiff in error.
Adolph Marks, for defendant in error.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to 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.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Baker
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Contracts, § 351 —when action may he maintained on invalid writing. An action on an invalid written contract may be maintained if there is in the statement of claim an allegation of a verbal contract sufficient to support the action.
3. Appearance, § 12 —when confers jurisdiction. In an action where defendant has entered an appearance, held error to allow a motion to dismiss on the ground of want of jurisdiction, for the reason that in such case the court has jurisdiction to try all issues.