{
  "id": 5785502,
  "name": "Frank E. Pettit v. Newman G. Hall et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pettit v. Hall",
  "decision_date": "1899-03-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "377",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 Ill. App. 376"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "93 Ill. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2735472
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "255"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/93/0253-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2138,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17033367582434342
    },
    "sha256": "f26d13e8a145978ab797f45b40ce15add37e41428e231f80229db375c1131cbb",
    "simhash": "1:c9276cfa10cfb188",
    "word_count": 371
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:11.973736+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank E. Pettit v. Newman G. Hall et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was no affidavit setting forth any defense presented to the court by appellant, the defendant below, in support of the motion. This was necessary. Little v. Allington, 93 Ill. 253, 255.\nThe affidavit and notice were in due form and properly filed, and the cause was properly upon the short cause calendar.\nThe point that ten days\u2019 notice was not given, resting wholly upon the contention that the last of the ten days required expiring on Sunday, the defendant was entitled to all the Monday following, which was the day the cause was set for, and tried, is baseless. Rev. Stat., Sec. 6, Chap. 100, entitled \u201c Notices.\u201d\nAn affidavit which has only to say for the merits of a defense, that defendant\u2019s counsel \u201cis of opinion that the defendant has a good and meritorious defense to this suit,\u201d is insufficient.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Lavery, attorney for appellant,",
      "Gurley & Wood, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank E. Pettit v. Newman G. Hall et al.\n1. Short Cause Calendar\u2014Where the Last Day of the Notice Falls on Sunday.\u2014Where the last day of the notice to place a cause on the short cause calendar falls on Sunday the defendant will be entitled to no further time; the notice expires with the day.\n2. Merits\u2014Insufficient Affidavit of.\u2014An affidavit of merits which states that the defendant\u2019s counsel \u201c is of opinion that the defendant has a good and meritorious defense to this suit,\u201d is sufficient.\nAssumpsit, upon written contract. Trial in the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 14, 1899.\nW. Lavery, attorney for appellant,\ncontended that the act known as the \u201cshort cause act,\u201d in designating the number of days for notice intended to require ten entire days and did not intend that a fraction of a day should be considered as a day, and this act is not governed by the sixth section of the statute relating to notices (Hurd\u2019s Ed. E. S., 1895, 1066, Chap. 100), but is controlled by its own language and the construction to be placed upon it from the intention of the legislature.\nGurley & Wood, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 382,
  "last_page_order": 383
}
