Goelz v. Joerg

Citations

• 64 Ill. 114

Syllabus

<p>1. Defective abstract—presumption. Upon an assignment of error that a demurrer to a plea was improperly sustained in the court below, it appeared the p^ea was not set out in the abstract, and the appellate court therefore presumed the assignment of error was regarded as not well taken.</p> <p>2. Plea—not answering the mitire came of action. In an action of debt upon a replevin bond, it was recited in the declaration that a portion of the goods taken under the writ of replevin were, upon a trial, directed to be returned to the defendant in the replevin suit. The breach alleged was that the plaintiff in the action of replevin did not prosecute his said suit to effect and without delay, and had not made return of the property as awarded. A plea which merely averred that the plaintiff' in replevin did prosecute his suit0without delay and with effect, was held not to be as broad as the breach, and therefore bad.</p> <p>3. Variance between declaration and bond sued upon. In the same suit the bond was described in the declaration as having been executed by the defendants, designating who of them was principal and who were sureties. The bond, in the penal part, described those executing it as ¿joint obligors, without specifying who was principal and who were sureties; but in the condition of the bond the obligors were described according to the character in which'they executed it—as principal and sureties—so there was held to be no variance between the declaration and, the bond in that regard.</p>