Jones v. Barmm
| Decision Date | 24 October 1905 |
| Citation | 217 Ill. 381,75 N.E. 505 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | JONES v. BARMM. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.
Action by Albert C. Jones against Frank H. Barmm. On the death of defendant, Antje Barmm was substituted as defendant. Judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Thomas J. O'Hare, for appellant.
E. A. Aborn, for appellee.
Appellant, Albert C. Jones, began an action on the case in the circuit court of Cook county against one Frank H. Barmm. On March 11, 1903, after the commencement of the suit, Frank H. Barmm died. His administratrix was substituted as party defendant, and a summons was issued against her. On July 21, 1903, she filed her plea in abatement, alleging the death of Frank H. Barmm, and that the cause of action set forth in the declaration did not survive. A demurrer was filed to the plea, which was overruled and an order entered abating the suit, together with a judgment for costs against the plaintiff. This judgment has been affirmed by the Appellate Court, and a further appeal has been prosecuted to this court.WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).
The sole question is whether or not the action was one which survived. The declaration alleges that Barmm, on July 1, 1902, began and instituted a persistent and malicious interference with plaintiff's business, by ejecting one of the plaintiff's customers from his place of business; by denying and barring entrance to plaintiff's place of business to a customer; by falsely representing that plaintiff had removed his place of business; by bringing a reporter of a newspaper to take a picture of plaintiff while he was engaged with a customer, and suddenly throwing open the door to plaintiff's office, wherein plaintiff and the customer were in consultation, and demanding in loud, boisterous tones the acquiescence of plaintiff and his customer in taking their picture together; by removing plaintiff's name from his office door; and by other and divers acts. It is very apparent from these allegations of the declaration that the suit was brought to recover for an alleged tort of deceased in hindering, injuring, and interfering with plaintiff's business. At common law actions of tort did not survive the death of the sole plaintiff or defendant. Therefore, if this action survives at all, it must be by virtue of some statutory provision.
It is insisted by plaintiff that the action survives by virtue of section 122...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Associated Billposters and Distributors
...the plaintiff's use of his property, and not the property itself, was affected by the act of which he complains." In Jones v. Barmm, 217 Ill. 381, 75 N. E. 505, in 1905, an action was brought to recover damages which the plaintiff had suffered in his business by the conduct of the defendant......
-
Mattyasovszky v. West Towns Bus Co.
...N.E.2d 140 (1966),) the words of the statute must be construed to take on their ordinary, popularly-accepted meaning. (Jones v. Barmm, 217 Ill. 381, 75 N.E. 505 (1905).) The reason for the old common-law rule of abatement seems to be that a tort action was originally regarded as punitive in......
-
Moore v. Backus, 5401.
...in the Illinois decisions which is at variance with that conclusion. Of the cases cited and discussed by appellants, Jones v. Barmm, 217 Ill. 381, 75 N. E. 505, related to the death of the defendant and not the plaintiff, and therefore is not in point. Wilcox v. Bierd, 330 Ill. 571, 162 N. ......
-
Bryant v. Kroger Co.
...done had it contemplated the narrow scope given to it in the Wilcox [v. Bierd, 330 Ill. 571, 162 N.E. 170 (1928) ] and Jones [v. Barmm, 217 Ill. 381, 75 N.E. 505 (1905) ] cases. Instead it employs the all-embracing term "personal property." 34 Ill.2d 487, 490-91, 216 N.E.2d The McDaniel cou......