{
  "id": 5786897,
  "name": "Henry H. Brinton v. Jean E. Lafond",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brinton v. Lafond",
  "decision_date": "1899-02-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "227",
  "last_page": "228",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 Ill. App. 227"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5286351
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/24/0037-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 3725,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17034912074024394
    },
    "sha256": "18d3374c561dd20c285fc1485c18e02feff7300a441815925cedc60849a782db",
    "simhash": "1:bb33b7744ae64742",
    "word_count": 649
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:11.973736+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry H. Brinton v. Jean E. Lafond."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellee in this case recovered judgment before a justice of the peace against appellant, and the latter perfected an appeal to the County Court. There the case was placed upon the short cause calendar, and appellant not appearing, judgment was obtained against him in that court for a sum considerably larger than the judgment entered before the justice. A motion to set aside the judgment was denied, and the defendant appeals.\nIt is contended that this ex parte judgment was improperly obtained, because no notice was given, as required by statute, that the cause would be placed on the short cause calendar.\nThe statute provides: \u201c Upon the plaintiff, his agent or attorney, in any suit at law pending in any court of record, filing an affidavit that he verily believes the trial of said suit will not occupy more than one hour\u2019s time, and upon ten days\u2019 previous notice to the defendant, his agent or attorney, said suit shall be placed by the clerk upon said short cause calendar.\u201d\nThe bill of exceptions shows that an affidavit as required by statute, and a notice to the attorney who had represented appellant before the justice, with an affidavit of its service by copy, was duly filed with the clerk of the County Court. That affidavit of service states that the affiant \u201cserved the above notice by leaving a copy of the same,\u201d and was duly sworn to. It appears, however, that the copy so left, while a complete copy in all other respects of the notice itself and of the affidavit that affiant believed the trial of said suit would not occupy more than one hour\u2019s time, failed to show a copy of the signature of the officer before whom it was verified.\nThe statute provides that a suit may be placed upon the short cause calendar \u201c upon ten days previous notice.\u201d The notice in this case might, perhaps, have been sufficient if it had been served upon \u201c the defendant, his agent or attorney.\u201d But it was not so served. The fact that it was served on the attorney who had appeared for appellant before the justice, does not make the service sufficient under the statute. It is affirmatively shown that appellant had no attorney in the case after it was appealed to the County Court, and none had appeared for him. In Covill v. Phy, 24 Ill. 37, it was held that attorneys who tried the cause below, were not authorized to appear in the Supreme Court without a new retainer for that purpose.\nThe statute requires notice \u201c to the defendant, his agent or attorney.\u201d The affidavit shows service upon an attorney not employed in the ease, and upon no one else. The case was not properly upon the short cause calendar for trial, and it appearing from the affidavit filed that appellant had a good and meritorious defense, the motion to set aside the judgment was improperly denied.\nThe judgment of the County Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus' King, attorney for appellant.",
      "Jean E. Lafond, appellee, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry H. Brinton v. Jean E. Lafond.\n1. Short Cause Calendar\u2014Insufficient Notice.\u2014Notice that a suit has been placed upon the short cause calendar, served upon the attorney who had appeared for a party in an inferior court, does not make the notice sufficient under the statute, where it is affirmatively shown that such party had no attorney in the case after it was appealed to the court above, and none had appeared for him.\n' Replevin.\u2014Trial in the County Court of Cook County on appeal from a justice of the peace; the Hon. Wales W. Wood, Judge, presiding.\nVerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1898.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 14, 1899.\nRufus' King, attorney for appellant.\nJean E. Lafond, appellee, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0227-01",
  "first_page_order": 233,
  "last_page_order": 234
}