TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Murphy

Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Edward W. Murphy

Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Murphy, 59 Ill. App. 39 (1895)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 3, 1895
Judges
Gary
Citations
59 Ill. App. 391895 Ill. App. LEXIS 126
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Sub-contractor—Can Not Recover under the Common Counts.— A sub-contractor can not recover under the common counts for goods sold and delivered, or for money paid and received.
Summary
Assumpsit.-—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1895.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gary

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Gary delivered the opinion- of the Court.

William D. Gleason undertook to furnish the materials and do the work of the masonry of a house for the appellee.

Gleason procured materials, on his own account, from the appellant. An item of $43.63, in regard to which the brief of the appellant urges that it was procured upon the account of the appellee, is not so proved by any testimony definite enough to base a verdict upon.

The appellant’s abstract says, “ Declaration, consisting of common counts.” Without looking at the record we assume that a count for goods sold and delivered, and a count for money had and received, were in the declaration, and hold that if they were, they were of no use.

If the fact were that under Sec. 37, Liens, the appellant had any claim upon the appellee, it was to be prosecuted in an action against him and Gleason jointly, and upon a declaration consistent with the cause of action.

The appellee had bought nothing from the appellant— had received no money from any source for the use of appellant.

The “ Per Curiam ” opinion in Culver v. Fleming, 61 Ill. 498 , is not enough to warrant a disregard of legal principles in cases now pending. That case was commenced before a justice and no form of pleading was in question; and the non-joinder of. the contractor (if he was not joined), is not alluded to in the opinion. Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 119772026peak 1977 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Redd v. Woodford County Swine Breeders, Inc.370 N.E.2d 152 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)

Most recent

  1. Redd v. Woodford County Swine Breeders, Inc.370 N.E.2d 152 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Culver v. Fleming, 61 Ill. 498 (1871) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list