
    Bertha M. Doyle, Defendant in Error, v. Samuel Fallows et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 23,547. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gem mill, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed January 28, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Bertha M. Doyle, plaintiff, against Samuel Fallows and others, defendants, to recover for services as stenographer and secretary to the finance committee of the Illinois Commission of Lincoln Jubilee and Half-Century Anniversary Exposition and for moneys advanced in the business of the Commission. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13
      
      —when statement of claim in action for services insufficient as basis for judgment. Judgment held Improperly entered against the defendants where the statement of claim made no mention of their names or of employment by-them or of services rendered to thena, but averred only a hiring of plaintiff by a certain commission, in an action to recover for services rendered to a committee of such commission and for moneys advanced in its business.
    2. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 30*—when failure of statement of claim to state cause of action is not cured. The failure of the statement of claim to state a' cause of action against the defendants because making no mention of their names or employment by them or of services rendered to them was not cured by the praecipe for summons wherein the names of the defendants were set out and they were designated as constituting a certain commission, against which commission only the statement of claim set up a cause of action.
    •3. Judgment, § 190*—necessity of against all joint defendants. "Where a joint liability is charged against several defendants, judgment must r,un against all or none, and may not be entered against a part only.
    The statement of claim averred plaintiff was “hired” by the Commission, but made no averment of employment by the defendants or óf services rendered to them, or mention of their names.
    See also, Doyle v. Fallows, 207 Ill. App. 5.
    John Dailey, Bichard J. Cooney and John A. Verhoeven, for plaintiffs in error.
    D. K. Cochrane, for defendant in error.
    
      
      Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.  