North Chicago Rolling Mill Co. v. Monka

Citations

• 107 Ill. 340
• 1883 Ill. LEXIS 268

Syllabus

<p>1. Limitation—-as to new count in declaration. A new cause of action, distinct from that already mentioned in tbe declaration, can not escape the effect of tbe Statute of Limitations, after the time for suing upon it has elapsed, by being introduced by way of amendment or additional counts into the declaration, in an action for a different cause of action, brought before the lapse of the statutory time.</p> <p>2. But when the amendment in an additional count is introduced merely to restate, in a different form, the same cause of action mentioned in the declaration as originally drawn, and not to present a new and different cause of action, the rule has no application, and the plea of the Statute of Limitations to such new count is not proper.</p> <p>3. Pleading—additional counts—as to identity of cause of action. In case, by a servant of a corporation against the corporation to recover for personal injuries received through negligence in the defendant, the declaration charged that defendant “carelessly and wrongfully furnished and permitted to remain in use” an insufficient and defective clamp, etc. Afterward, by' leave of court, another count was filed, claiming damages for the same injury, and averring that “defendant carelessly and wrongfully permitted to become and remain in said rolling mill an unsafe, insufficient and defective clamp, and wrongfully and negligently suffered the same to become and remain in bad and unsafe repair and condition, ” etc.: Held, that the cause of action in both counts was the same, only differently stated.</p> <p>4. Evidence—extracts from boohs on mechanics. In an action on the ease to recover for an injury caused by the use of defective machinery, there is no error in refusing to allow the party to read in evidence certain extracts from a standard work on mechanics.</p>