{
  "id": 4842480,
  "name": "William D. Ditch, Ex'r, etc., v. The Trustees of Shurtleff College",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ditch v. Trustees of Shurtleff College",
  "decision_date": "1881-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "294",
  "last_page": "295",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 Ill. App. 294"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28488185990766257
    },
    "sha256": "0877268b276b947ef39ca8bf3c6f7399d0a3a62ded1e533d2984e1791a77f103",
    "simhash": "1:d73179bb63b3faf0",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:21.704510+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William D. Ditch, Ex\u2019r, etc., v. The Trustees of Shurtleff College."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe only point of importance in the case is the length of time intervening between the time of the submission of the cause to the court and the rendition of judgment.\nThe evidence was heard, and the cause submitted on the 8th day of March, 1877, and taken under advisement \u201c to be decided in vacation as of this term.\u201d\nFinal judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs (defendants in error) on the 9th day of August, 1880.\nIn the interval, the case does not appear to have been on the docket.\nIt is insisted by the counsel for plaintiffs in error, that the circuit court lost jurisdiction of the cause, and that, as a result, the judgment entered at the time it was, is a nulli ty.\nThe practice is certainly objectionable, and evil results might follow from it. Still, it has grown to be a practice to some extent, and, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has not directly passed upon the question, we do not feel at liberty to say that it is such error as would reverse the judgment.\nIn this case it does not appear that any harm was done or injury resulted from the delay, and although the record does not show it, there were, no doubt, ample and sufficient reasons to justify the judge in delaying the entry of final judgment.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. William Winkelman, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Mr. Marshall W. Weir, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William D. Ditch, Ex\u2019r, etc., v. The Trustees of Shurtleff College.\nPractice \u2014 Delay in entering judgment. \u2014 This cause was submitted in March, 1877, and final judgment was rendered August, 1880. The practice of delaying the decision of a case for a long time after it has been submitted, is objectionable, but is not a sufficient ground for reversal.\nError to the Circuit Court of Monroe county; the Hon. Amos Watts, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed April 7, 1881.\nMr. William Winkelman, for plaintiffs in error.\nMr. Marshall W. Weir, for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0294-01",
  "first_page_order": 296,
  "last_page_order": 297
}
