Arms v. Ayer

Decision Date24 October 1901
Citation61 N.E. 851,192 Ill. 601
PartiesARMS v. AYER et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from superior court, Cook county; Jesse Holdom, Judge.

Action by Aura C. Arms against Frederick Ayer and others. From a judgment in defendants' favor, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Lynden Evans, for appellant.

Samuel S. Page and Franklin P. Snyder, for appellee Chicago Cottage organ co.

Smoot & Eyer, for appellee Frederick Ayer.

The appellant sued appellees in the superior court of Cook county, in case, to recover damages or unlawfully causing the death of her intestate. The declaration is very voluminous, consisting of 10 counts, to each of which the defendants interposed a general and special demurrer. The circuit court sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment for the defendants. This appeal is from that judgment.

The cause of action in each count of the declaration is based upon an alleged violation of the fire-escape act, approved May 27, 1897 (Laws 1897, p. 222), and the general demurrer goes to the validity of the act. It is as follows:

Section 1. That within three (3) months next after the passage of this act all buildings in this state which are four or more stories in height, excepting such as are used for private residences exclusively, but including flats and apartment buildings, shall be provided with one or more metallic ladder or stair fire-escapes attached to the outer walls thereof, and provided with platforms of such form and dimensions, and such proximity to one or more windows of each story above the first, as to render access to such ladder or stairs from each such story easy and safe, and shall also be provided with one or more automatic metallic fire-escapes, or other proper device, to be attached to the inside of said buildings so as to afford an effective means of escape to all occupants who, for any reason, are unable to use said ladders or stairs; the number, location, material and construction of such escapes to be subject to the approval of the inspector of factories: provided, however, that all buildings more than two stories in height, used for manufacturing purposes, or for hotels, dormitories, schools, seminaries, hospitals, or asylums, shall have at least one such ladder fire-escape for every fifty (50) persons, and one such automatic metallic escape, or other device, for every twenty-five (25) persons, for which working, sleeping or living accommodations are provided above the second stories of said buildings; and that all public halls which provide seating room above the first or ground story shall be provided with such numbers of said ladder and other fire-escapes as said inspector of factories shall designate.

Sec. 2. All buildings of the number of stories and used for the purposes set forth in section 1 of this act which shall be hereafter erected within this state shall, upon or before their completion, each be provided with fire-escapes of the kind and number and in the manner set forth in this act.

Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of said inspector of factories to serve a written notice, in behalf of the people of the state of Illinois, upon the owner or owners, trustees or lessees, or occupant, of any building within this state not provided with fire-escapes in accordance with the requirements of this act, commanding such owner, trustee, lessee or occupant, or either of them, to place or cause to be placed upon such building such fireescape or escapes as provided in section 1 of this act, within thirty (30) days after the service of such notice. And the grand juries of the several counties of this state may also, during any term, visit or hear testimony relating to any building or buildings within their respective counties for the purpose of ascertaining whether it or they are provided with fire-escapes in accordance with the requirements of this act, and submit the result of their inquiry, together with any recommendations they may desire to make, to the circuit court, except in Cook county, and to the criminal court of Cook county, and said court may thereupon, if it find from the report of said grand jury that said building or buildings is or are not provided with a fire-escape or escapes in accordance with this act, cause the sheriff to serve a notice or notices upon the owner, trustee, lessee or occupant of such building or buildings.

Sec. 4. Any such owner or owners, trustee, lessee, or occupant, or either of them, so served with notice as aforesaid, who shall not, within thirty (30) days after the service of such notice upon him or them, place or cause to be placed such fire-escape or escapes upon such building as required by this act and the terms of such notice, shall be subject to a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200, and to a further fine of $50 for each additional week of neglect to comply with such notice.

Sec. 5. The erection and construction of any and all fire-escapes provided for in this act shall be under the direct supervision and control of said inspector of factories, and it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, firm or corporation to erect or construct any fire-escape or escapes, except in accordance with a written permit first had and obtained and signed by said inspector of factories, which permit shall prescribe the number, location, material, kind and manner of construction of such fire-escape.

Sec. 6. Any person or persons, firm or corporation, who shall be required to place one or more fire-escapes upon any building or buildings, under the provisions of this act, shall file in the office of said inspector of factories a written application for a permit to erect or construct such fire-escape or escapes, which application shall briefly describe the character of such building or buildings, the height and number of stories thereof, the number of fire-escapes proposed to be placed thereon, the purposes for which such building or buildings is or are used, and the greatest number of people who use or occupy or are employed in such building or buildings above the second stories thereof at any one time.

Sec. 7. That an act entitled ‘An act relating to fire-escapes for buildings,’ approved June 29, 1885, in force July 1, 1885, be and the same is hereby repealed.'

The first count is as follows: ‘That the defendants upon and for a long time prior to March 16, 1898, were owners of a certain seven-story brick building located on the west side of Wabash avenue, between Adams street and Jackson boulevard, in the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and state of Illinois, commonly known as 215, 217, 219, and 221 Wabash avenue, in said city, county, and state; that said building was used for manufacturing purposes; that by reason of the statute approved May 27, 1897, in force July 1, 1897, it became the duty of the defendants to provide said building with one or more metallicladder or stair fire-escapes, attached to the outer walls thereof, and provided with platforms in such form and dimension, and in such proximity to one or more windows of each story above the first story, as to render access to such ladder or stairs from each such story easy and safe, and also to provide said building with one or more automatic metallic fire-escapes, or other proper device, to be attached to the inside of said building, so as to afford an effective means of escape to all occupants who for any reason are unable to use the ladder or stairs, and to provide the number, location, material, and construction of such escapes, subject to the approval of the inspector of factories; but the plaintiff avers that the defendants have never filed in the office of said inspector of factories a written application for a permit to erect or construct such fire-escape or escapes, and that by reason of the statute it became the duty of the defendants to apply for a permit, according to said statute, and to provide at least one ladder fire-escape for every fifty persons, and one such automatic metallic fire-escape or other device for every twenty-five persons for whom working accommodations were provided in said building above the second story thereof; that at the time aforesaid, and for a long time prior thereto, working accommodations were provided for more than one hundred persons above the second story of said building, and that more than one hundred persons were working in said building above said second story for a long space prior thereto, and that thereby it became the duty of the defendants to provide said building with not less than two ladder fire-escapes, and not less than four automatic metallic escapes or other devices; that the defendants disregarded their duty in this behalf, and did not provide said building with any automatic metallic fire-escape, or other device of any nature whatsoever, and did not provide the said building with any ladder fire-escapes, except one ladder fire-escape placed at the rear end of said building, which said ladderfire-escape was not provided or constructed in compliance with the statute aforesaid; that upon March 16, 1898, and at the beginning of the fire hereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff's intestate was employed as a salesman, and was working on the seventh floor of the said building, and was rightfully in said premises; that upon the 16th of March, 1898, a fire was discovered in said building below the seventh story thereof, and that said fire spread rapidly through the entire building, by means whereof the elevators and stairways were enveloped in flame and smoke, and the elevators rendered useless and the stairways impassable, and that the plaintiff's intestate was then and there suffocated by the smoke and fumes of said fire, and fell to the ground dead; that said fire started and continued without fault or negligence of the plaintiff's intestate, and that the plaintiff's intestate was in the exercise of all due care and caution during all the time before mentioned; avers that the plaintiff's death was caused...

To continue reading

Request your trial
95 cases
  • State Ex Rel. Richards v. Moorer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 12 Octubre 1929
    ......C. L., p. 165, § 166, and cases cited in note; State ex rel. v. Butler, 105 Me. 91, 73 A. 560, 562, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 745; Arms v. Ayer, 192 111. 601, 61 N. E. 851, 58 L. R. A. 277, 85 Am. St. Rep. 358; Schaezlin v. Ca-baniss, 135 Cal. 466, 67 P. 755, 56 L. R. A. 736, ......
  • Kansas City Gunning Advertising Co. v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 9 Febrero 1912
    ......Kansas, 123 U.S. 623; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1; Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass. 368; Campbell v. Kansas City, 102 Mo. 326; Arms. v. Ayer, 192 Ill. 601; Pauley v. Steam G. & L. Co., 131 N.Y. 90; Sewell v. Moore, 166 Pa. 570;. St. Louis v. Inv. Co., 226 Mo. 148. (4) ......
  • People v. Bruner , 20603.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 18 Febrero 1931
    ...E. 910, 44 L. R. A. 801, 68 Am. St. Rep. 175. To the same effect are: Mitchell v. Lowden, 288 Ill. 327, 123 N. E. 566, and Arms v. Ayer, 192 Ill. 601, 61 N. E. 851, 58 L. R. A. 277, 85 Am. St. Rep. 357. Other definitions of judicial power are, in 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 8th Ed., p. 1740......
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 13 Julio 1909
    ......Arms v. Ayer, 192 Ill. 601, 61 N.E. 851, 58 L. R. A. 277, 85 Am. St. Rep. 357. In the case of City of Pond Creek v. Haskell, 21 Okla. 711, 97 P. 338, this ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT