Case Name: Nellie A. Cross, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Chicago, Defendant in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1916-03-02
Citations: 198 Ill. App. 177
Docket Number: Gen. No. 20,638
Parties: Nellie A. Cross, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Chicago, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 198
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Nellie A. Cross, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Chicago, Defendant in Error.
Gen. No. 20,638.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. James C. Martin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed March 2, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Nellie A. Cross, plaintiff, against the City of Chicago, defendant, on account of personal injuries sustained by her. From a judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago dismissing her statement of claim because of failure to allege the giving of statutory notice, plaintiff brings error.
On the second day of the present term the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court, but the attention of the court having since been called to the decision in Enberg v. City of Chicago, 271 Ill. 404, the former opinion is withdrawn and the judgment reversed and remanded.
Edward H. Stearns, for plaintiff in error.
N. L. Piotrowski, for defendant in error.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Pam
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Appeal and error, § 1802 —when Appellate Court will reverse ancl remand case because of subsequent decision of Supreme Court on similar point. Where Supreme Court holds point of law contrary to holding of Appellate Court in different case but in same term of court, the Appellate Court will reverse and remand such case which it had previously affirmed.
2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim in action against city for personal injuries sufficient. In fourth-class cases in the Municipal Court of Chicago, a statement of claim in an action against a city for personal injuries need not allege the giving of statutory notice of injuries to the city.