Opinion · Illaw Illinois

RIORDAN v. McINTOSH, 319 Ill. App. 248 (1943)

Mae L. Riordan, Appellant, v. Arthur T. McIntosh, Appellee., 48 N.E.2d 800 (Ill. App. Ct. 1943)

Type
Opinion
Court
Illaw Illinois
Jurisdiction
Illaw
Date
1943-05-10
Topic
general

RIORDAN v. McINTOSH, 319 Ill. App. 248 (1943) 48 N.E.2d 800 Mae L. Riordan, Appellant, v. Arthur T.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed RIORDAN v. McINTOSH, 319 Ill. App. 248 (1943). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

RIORDAN v. McINTOSH,319 Ill. App. 248(1943)
48 N.E.2d 800
Mae L. Riordan, Appellant, v. Arthur T. McIntosh, Appellee.
Gen. No. 42,435. (Abstract of Decision.)
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.
Opinion filed May 10, 1943
LIMITATIONS OF ACTION, § 40fn*—propriety of dismissal ofaction barred by limitation period.In action to recover money paid by plaintiff under contract for purchase of real estate, on ground that certain representations made by agent of seller were false, trial court did not err in striking statement of claim and dismissing suit, where it appeared from statement of claim that cause of action stated therein wasPage 249barred by five-year statute of limitations (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1941, ch. 83, par. 16; Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 107.275).
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. CHARLES S. DOUGHERTY, Judge, presiding.

Affirmed. Heard in the first division, first district, this court at the October term, 1942.
Thomas C. Kennedy, for appellant;

Bluford, Krinsley, Schultz Voorheis, for appellee;

Victor Hedberg, of counsel.
Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE MATCHETT.
"Not to be published in full."Opinion filed May 10, 1943.
  1. See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and sectionnumber. ↩