{
  "id": 2688287,
  "name": "Samuel S. Gardner et al. v. William C. Baker et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gardner v. Baker",
  "decision_date": "1875-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "448",
  "last_page": "449",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 Ill. 448"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1887,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "sha256": "43c37de194d0bdcb11dbb972f915f8b9d6ac23103256600894350bfe96150fe3",
    "simhash": "1:9d54d8875bc31509",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:05.616340+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel S. Gardner et al. v. William C. Baker et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sheldon\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a suit brought in the Superior Court of Cook county, upon a promissory note. The plaintiffs recovered, and the defendants appealed.\nThe only point urged for a reversal of the judgment is, that the court below erred in granting a speedy trial of the cause out of its order on the trial calendar, under what was then designated the five-day rule, and the question is claimed by appellants\u2019 counsel to have been determined by this court in former decisions against the validity of that rule.\nHo such question as the one sought to be presented arises upon this record. There is no bill of exceptions, and all that the record shows in the respect complained of, is, that, on motion of the plaintiffs, the court ordered that a speedy trial be had in the cause, and, on the agreement of the parties, the cause was submitted to the court for trial, without the intervention of a jury. So far as appears from the record, the action of the court was nothing more than in obedience to the provision of the bill of rights, that every person ought to obtain right and justice \u201cpromptly and without delay.\u201d\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sheldon"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Chester Kinney, for the appellants.",
      "Messrs. Hutchinson & Luff, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel S. Gardner et al. v. William C. Baker et al.\nSpeedy trial. Where the record merely shows that the court below ordered that a speedy trial be had in the cause, and that, by agreement of parties, the cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and there is no bill of exceptions, it would seem the action of the court was nothing more than a compliance with the provision of th'e bill of rights, that every person ought to obtain right and justice \u201cpromptly and without delay.\u201d\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Chester Kinney, for the appellants.\nMessrs. Hutchinson & Luff, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0448-01",
  "first_page_order": 456,
  "last_page_order": 457
}