Legal Opinion

Rayfield v. Park

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 22, 1909No. Gen. No. 14,367PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Action in case for personal injuries. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Max Eberhardt, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. Presiding Justice Adams

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to reverse a judgment rendered in a suit by Stella Bayfield, a minor, by her next friend, against Sans Souci Park, a corporation, and the Marshall Amusement Company, also a corporation. The case is one of the fourth class, in which no formal pleadings are required, but, in lieu of a declaration, the plaintiff, in case the suit is for a tort, is required by section 40 of the “Act in relation to a Municipal Court in the city of Chicago”, to file “a brief statement of the nature of the tort, and such ' further…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gridley v. City of BloomingtonIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
  2. Chicago City Railway Co. v. BarkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
  3. City of Peoria v. AdamsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1897
  4. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co. v. HoffmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1899

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Goettee v. CarlyleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
  2. Blue Grass Fair Ass'n v. BunnellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924
  3. Howard v. Village of ChisholmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  4. Babicz v. Riverview Sharpshooters Park Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API