This is an appeal from a decision and order granting the defendant, appellee here, a summary judgment. After the court had heard the motion for summary judgment and considered the affidavits filеd in support thereof, and the counter affidavit filed in opрosition thereto, the court filed an opinion and order sеtting forth the facts in the case and the contentions of the рarties. It concluded that on the basis of the showing made to the court, “it cannot be said that there is any genuine issue of a mаterial fact.” The court ordered that the plaintiff be grantеd a time within which to serve and file any additional evidence in оpposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, reciting that if no additional evidence was submitted summary judgment would be enterеd.
After plaintiff had taken advantage of the leave grantеd to supply additional or new evidence by way of affidavit оr otherwise, and after receiving further briefs from the parties, the court then made its final order finding and determining that notwithstanding the receipt of this additional evidence, there was still no genuine issue of fact present in the case. It thereupon granted thе motion for summary judgment and judgment was entered accordingly.
The trial court’s opinion, Wireline, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Byron Jackson Tools, Inc. а/k/a, etc., Defendant, D.C.,
As indicated in Points 2 and 3 of the appellant’s brief, it was the contention of the appellant Wireline that the contract or agreement, which constituted the basis for its claim, was executed by the named defendant Byron Jackson Tools, Inc., and that in executing this agreement the defendant, as party thereto, used and assumed a fictitious name. 1 2(The contract purported to be between “Byron Jaсkson Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, an Illinois Corporatiоn” and the plaintiff Wireline, Inc., and was signed “Byron Jackson Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, (Licensor).”)
Appellant also says “It must bе remembered that we are not seeking to pierce the corporate veil and hold the parent, Borg-Warner.” This is obvious for the Borg-Warner Corporation was not made a defendant.
In view of the decisions cited in the opinion of the triаl court, particularly Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co.,
Notes
. Points 2 аnd 3 read as follows: “Point 2. The License Agreement herein considered was signed by officers of Byron Jackson Tools, Inc. and аs such is prima facie evidence that the agreement wаs executed by Bryon Jackson Tools, Inc.”
“Point 3. Tliat an assumed or fictitious name was used by Byron Jaekson Tools, Inc. in executing the License Agreement is immaterial; it is the intent of the parties thereto which is controlling.”