Arms v. Ayer
Decision Date | 24 October 1901 |
Citation | 61 N.E. 851,192 Ill. 601 |
Parties | ARMS v. AYER et al. |
Court | Illinois 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 appelleeFrederick 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:
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 trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State Ex Rel. Richards v. Moorer
...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, 87 Am. St. Rep. 122; Louisville H. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lyon......
-
Kansas City Gunning Advertising Co. v. Kansas City
... ... 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 ... ...
-
People v. Bruner
...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, the authority e......
-
State ex rel. Smith v. Brown
...fact of their being uniform is not affected by the number of those within the scope of their operation. 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 court said: "It is a general act......