City of Chicago v. Babcock
City of Chicago v. Emma Babcock
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Waterman, J. It is argued in this case that appellee, who was injured by falling through an opening in a sidewalk, was not exercising ordinary'care when she so fell, and that for this reason the judgment in this case should be reversed.
We do not think the record presents a state of facts warranting us in setting aside the finding of the jury in this regard. They were- properly instructed and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The suit as first brought was against the city, and the owner of the building in front of which appellee fell, and for the use of whose tenants the opening existed. Appellee settled with such owner, receiving from him a sum of money; it is insisted that such settlement precluded her from recovering against the city.
The settlement was not pleaded, and occurring as it did after action brought and issue joined, it should have been brought to the attention of the court by plea of puis da/rrien continuance. Chitty’s Pleading, Vol. 1, 689; Jackson v. Ramsey, 3 Cowen, 75; Mount v. Scholes, 120 Ill. 394 .
Ho such plea having been filed the defendant was not, at the trial, in a position to avail itself of such settlement.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.