delivered the opinion of the court.
McCarthy v. Morgan, 209 Ill. App. 244 (1917)
Dec. 24, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 23,477
209 Ill. App. 244
Patrick McCarthy, Appellee, v. C. H. Morgan and J. H. Sullivan, trading as C. H. Morgan and Company, Appellants.
Gen. No. 23,477. (Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. G-bmmill, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
Reversed and judgment of nil capiat and for costs here.
Opinion filed December 24, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Patrick McCarthy, plaintiff, against C. H. Morgan and J. H. Sullivan, trading as C. H. Morgan & Company, defendants, to recover for injury to plaintiff’s horse. From a judgment for plaintiff for $100, on remittitur, defendants appeal.
Plaintiff’s statement of claim was:
“Plaintiff’s claim is for damages to his horse; for vetérinary services expended in attempting to cure said animal; for loss of services, all occasioned by the negligence of the defendants, and each of them, their agents and servants in that behalf, in carelessly and negligently operating their automobile on, to-wit: October 20, 1913, at or near the intersection of 51st street and Vincennes avenue in the City of Chicago; and without giving any warning of the approach of said automobile, and for running the same at a dangerous and reckless rate of speed, and for the negligent operation thereof, resulting in damage to the plaintiff as follows: depreciation of value of horse, $275; loss of services of horse, 24 days at $6 per day, $144 (said horse being part of double team). Veterinary bill for attending said horse, $10. Total $429.”
*245Abstract of the Decision.
1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13 * —when pleadings do not state cause of action for negligent operation of automobile. Statement of claim or pleadings altogether, held not to state a cause of action for injury to plaintiff’s horse, by the negligent operation of defendant’s automobile.
2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—what is effect of failure to malee motion for more specific statement of claim. Failure to make a motion for a more specific statement of claim does not waive the defect of a total failure of a statement of claim to state a cause of action.
3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § ?>l*~when final judgment rendered without remanding. Where an amended statement of claim, if filed upon remanding, would be vulnerable to a plea of the statute of limitations, judgment will be reversed and judgment of nil capiat and for costs entered in Appellate Court.
Winston & Lowy, for appellants.
John F. Bolton and Moses H. KAMERMAN,.for appellee.