{ "id": 5116775, "name": "Vallens v. Hopkins", "name_abbreviation": "Vallens v. Hopkins", "decision_date": "1894-02-13", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "337", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "51 Ill. App. 337" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "33 Ill. App. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4987915 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/33/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 8500432 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/31/0295-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 258, "char_count": 4199, "ocr_confidence": 0.517, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.699805336962679e-08, "percentile": 0.40713358191925475 }, "sha256": "796d76a384717a70f6720ca6615e20d7a8adc23455b0a27c2c456484c8637ea3", "simhash": "1:a11b157d010a0d1e", "word_count": 752 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Vallens v. Hopkins." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee sued the appellant before a justice of the peace in an action of forcible detainer, and was defeated. He appealed to the Superior Court, by filing a bond with the justice May 25, 1893, and the transcript, etc., were filed in the Superior Court the 27th of the same month. The June term of the Superior Court commenced on the 5th day of that month. On the 1st day of June, the appellee served notice under the \u201c Short Cause \u201d act on Messrs. Moran, Kraus & Mayer, who had defended the appellant before the justice, by giving it to a member of the bar in the employ of that firm. June 12th, the appellant appeared by another attorney and moved to strike said cause from said short cause calendar, for the following reasons:\n\u201c First. Because said cause was not at issue on the date when the notice to place the same on the short cause calendar, to wit, June 1, 1893, is alleged to have been given, as provided by rule 18 of the common law rules of said court; that said cause was not at issue until Monday, the 5th day of June, A. D. 1893.\u201d\n\u201c Second. Because no notice was given to the defendant, his agent or attorney, of the placing of said cause on the short cause calendar, as required by the statute in such case made and provided.\u201d\n, This motion was denied the same day. The cause was not reached until June 26th, when the motion was renewed \u2014denied\u2014and the cause tried ex forte, the appellant withdrawing from the court.\nReason \u201c first \u201d is based upon a rule of the court containing a clause that \u201cHo cause shall be noticed for trial on such calendar until the same is at issue.\u201d\nThis does not apply to appeals from justices. On such appeals there are no written pleadings.\nThe argument, however, is that, as the appeal was not in the Superior Court ten days before the June term, nothing could be done in it at that term.\nThe appeal was taken eleven days before the term, and the case is therefore governed by the decision in Boyd v. Kocher, 31 Ill. 295.\nWe have been over the question in Bessey v. Ruhland, 33 Ill. App. 73, and abide by the views there expressed.\nReason \u201c second \u201d is based upon the lack of evidence that Moran, Kraus & Mayer were the attorneys of the appellant when the notice was served. That they were, before the justice, is conceded. That the notice, as served, was in fact notice to the appellant, is apparent, for it brought him into court by another attorney. Neither the appellant, nor any member of the firm, made affidavit denying the relation of attorney and client at the time the notice was served. Fourteen days elapsed after the first appearance by the other attorney, before the trial.\nOn the whole case it was pretty clear that delay only was the object of the appellant, and it was not an unfair inference that the appearance by the present attorney was really a substitution of one attorney to the place the firm held before.\nThere is only a question of technicality\u2014none of merits \u2014and such questions meet little favor here. Brown v. Johnson, No. 4916, this term.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Adolph Ascher, attorney for appellant.", "Coy & Brockway, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Vallens v. Hopkins.\n1. Short Cause Calendar\u2014Practice.\u2014The rule of court containing a clause that \u201cNo cause shall be noticed for trial on such calendar mitil the same is at issue,\u201d does not apply to appeals from justices. On such appeals there are no written pleadings.\n3. Appeals prom Justices\u2014When Properly for Trial.\u2014An appeal from a justice of the peace may be properly placed upon the trial docket of the court to which it is taken, where the appeal is perfected eleven days before the first day of the term.\n3. Notice\u2014To Attorneys, When to Clients, etc.\u2014In an appeal case from a justice of the peace, a notice served by appellant upon the attorneys who appeared for the appellee before the justice was held good.\nMemorandum.\u2014Forcible detainer. In the Superior Court of Cook County, on appeal from a justice; the Hon. Theodore Brentano. Judge, presiding. Appeal by the defendant. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed February 13, 1894.\nThe statement of the facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nAdolph Ascher, attorney for appellant.\nCoy & Brockway, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0337-01", "first_page_order": 333, "last_page_order": 335 }