{
  "id": 2404498,
  "name": "Michael Gormley et al. v. Gertrude Uthe",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gormley v. Uthe",
  "decision_date": "1878-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "170",
  "last_page": "171",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ill. App. 170"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2687988
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/79/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2685105
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/79/0449-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5317149
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0034-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5317384
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0412-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2329,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08062033732468572
    },
    "sha256": "29ef823a97089fccc711fdfe0f8153711209a5adadba1662c837292a75028ba5",
    "simhash": "1:a041eaf01ab64bd8",
    "word_count": 408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:08.007650+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael Gormley et al. v. Gertrude Uthe."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Murphy, P. J.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, commenced in the Superior Court of Cook county, by appellee against appellants. The plaintiff in her declaration counted specially on five promissory notes made by appellants. The declaration also contained the common counts. To this declaration the- appellants filed the plea of non-assumpsit, accompanied by an affidavit of merits. Notwithstanding the objection of the appellants, the court, on motion of the appellee, advanced and tried said cause out of its order on the docket, under and by virtue of a certain rule of practice existing in that court, known as the \u201c five-day rule.\u201d This is assigned for error by the appellants. This case \u25a0 turns upon the validity of that rule. In Nelson and Benson v. Akeson, at this term, we have passed upon the validity of that rule, and held that the matters to which that rule relates are regulated by the Practice Act of July 1st, 1872, and that the rule, as a consequence, is \u201c void and of no effect.\u201d The court below took up and disposed of the present case out of its order on the docket, and the judgment must, therefore, he reversed and the cause remanded. '\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Murphy, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Morton Culver, for appellants ;",
      "Mr. W. H. Condon, for appellee;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael Gormley et al. v. Gertrude Uthe.\nTrying cases-out op obdeb,\u2014Five-day bulb.\u2014The rule of the Superior Court, permitting causes to be advanced and tried out of their order on the docket, is inconsistent with the Practice Act, and is void.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county, the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Morton Culver, for appellants ;\nargued that plaintiff, having filed no affidavit with her declaration, was not entitled to a default, even though the defendants had not filed an affidavit of merits, and cited Angel v. Plume & Atwood Mfg. Co. 73 Ill. 412.\nThat the rule of the Superior Court is in contravention of the statute, Fisher v. Nat. Bank of Commerce, 73 Ill. 34; Griswold v. Shaw, 79 Ill. 449; C. D. & V. R. R. Co. v. Bank of North America, 9 Chicago Legal News, 12; Beardsley v. Gosling, 10 Chicago Legal News, 170.\nMr. W. H. Condon, for appellee;\ninsisted that the action of the court, in determining what is a good and sufficient cause for trying a case out of its order, cannot be reviewed, and cited Smith v. Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis, 79 Ill. 118; Singer, etc. v. May, 10 Chicago Legal News, 170."
  },
  "file_name": "0170-01",
  "first_page_order": 166,
  "last_page_order": 167
}