delivered the opinion of the court.
Arthur Wagner Co. v. Gallaher & Speck, 204 Ill. App. 206 (1917)
Feb. 19, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,587
204 Ill. App. 206
Arthur Wagner Company, Defendant in Error, v. Gallaher & Speck, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 22,587.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed February 19, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Arthur Wagner Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Gallaher & Speck, a corporation, defendant, to recover for the loss by defendant of a Bullock generator and switchboard for same belonging to the plaintiff and left in storage with the defendant for a stated period at an agreed compensation. From a judgment for plaintiff for six hundred dollars, defendant brings error.
*207Abstract of the Decision.
1. Corporations, § 325 * —when contract is incidental to powers of a corporation. A contract of bailment is incidental to the powers of a corporation bailee.
2. Corporations, § 475*—when defense of ultra vires acts is not available. The defense of ultra vires acts of a corporation is not available in an action of tort against it.
3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim is insufficient. A statement of claim against a bailee for loss of the goods hailed which stated the fair reasonable market value of the goods was not less than a certain amount, held to he a sufficient statement of value to support a pleading if evidence of the value were in the record, but insufficient in the absence of evidence.
4. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—what is effect of failure to deny averments of statement of claim. An undenied averment in a statement of claim of the value of property bailed stands as an admitted fact, under Rule 19 of the Municipal Court, in an action to recover from the bailee for the loss of the goods.
The contract under which the articles were taken by the defendant provided that they were not to be removed without the written permission of the plaintiff. They were removed with the defendant’s consent without a written or verbal permission of the plaintiff, and were lost.
Kerr & Kerr, for plaintiff in error.
Pines & Newmann, for defendant in error.