#### Nathan Levy, Defendant in Error, v. Swift & Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,462.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John C. Work, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.

Reversed.

Opinion filed October 10, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Nathan Levy, plaintiff, against Swift & Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff’s horse, wagon and harness, resulting from the precipitation of hot lard thereon, occasioned by the bursting of defendant’s pipe through which the lard was being pumped. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

R. C. McManus, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

*455Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13 * —when statement of claim insufficient., A statement of claim alleging that damage resulted to the plaintiff from an act of the defendant, without an averment of negligence when the act itself does not indicate negligence, does not state a cause of action.

2. Negligence, § 187*—when evidence insufficient to show. In an action for damages alleged to have been caused by the bursting of a pipe belonging to the defendant and the precipitation of hot lard upon the plaintiff and his team while driving along a highway, evidence held not to show any negligence on the part of the defendant.

3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 31*—when judgment reversed. Where a statement of claim does not allege a cause of action, a judgment for the plaintiff will be reversed.