{
  "id": 5319585,
  "name": "Charles S. Cleaver v. James L. Webster",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cleaver v. Webster",
  "decision_date": "1874-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "607",
  "last_page": "608",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 Ill. 607"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1717,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0645481284172307e-07,
      "percentile": 0.558029058837021
    },
    "sha256": "faa0c59c88df16529e5a82509c786aeb13ab1ed3737216bd21a2679179e4c72f",
    "simhash": "1:30d8d8ed1b278139",
    "word_count": 306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:27:08.421353+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles S. Cleaver v. James L. Webster."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Walker\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nIt is urged that the court below erred in taking up and trying this case out of its order, and that the rule of court permitting a plaintiff to set a case for trial on a particular day, when his client shall file an affidavit that he believes the defense is made for delay, is prohibited by the constitution of 1870.\nBut appellant did not object, so far as this record discloses, to proceeding to trial at the time and in the manner it was had. It appears that the case was called, the attorneys on both sides appeared, but no objection was interposed to taking up the case out of its order, but they proceeded to and tried the case. Under such circumstances, we must presume the objection now sought to be raised was waived, and the trial had with the consent of defendant. It may be, and the presumption is, that, had defendant objected to taking the case up at that time, the court would not have required defendant to proceed to trial. To have raised the question, defendant should have objected, and, had it been disallowed, he should have excepted and preserved it in the record.\n\u25a0 The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Walker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Springer & Corwin, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Ewing & Leonard, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles S. Cleaver v. James L. Webster.\nPractice\u2014waiver of objection to order in which cause was called, for trial. Where it appears that a case was called for trial, and the parties went to trial without objection, they will be held to have waived any objection as to the cause being called and tried out of its order.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gaby, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Springer & Corwin, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Ewing & Leonard, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0607-01",
  "first_page_order": 607,
  "last_page_order": 608
}