Freund v. Huylers

Appellate Court of Illinois

Freund v. Huylers

102 Ill. App. 486, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 552

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 23, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 Ill. App. 486 (Freund v. Huylers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freund v. Huylers, 102 Ill. App. 486, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 552 (Ill. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

It will be seen by the statement that this second notice, to place this case on the short cause calendar, after due service on appellants, was filed with the clerk of the Superior Court February 11, 1901; and that the case was not reached for trial until April 19, 1901. Then, and not until then, did appellants make a motion to strike said cause from off the short cause calendar.

Under these circumstances it is not necessary for us to examine the grounds upon which such motion was based, other than to note that they do not touch the merits of the controversy, but set forth an alleged irregularity only. It was the duty of appellants to make this motion at the first opportunity. Instead of so doing they waited two and one-half months and until the case was called for trial. The court below properly overruled the motion. Treftz v. Stahl, 46 Ill. App. 462; Johnston v. Brown, 51 Ill. App. 549; Stewart v. Carbray, 59 Ill. App. 397; Wheatley v. Chicago T. & S. Bk., 64 Ill. App. 612; Belinski v. Brand, 76 Ill. App. 404; McGuire v. Gilbert, 99 Ill. App. 517.

The judgment of the Superior Court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

It will be seen by the statement that this second notice, to place this case on the short cause calendar, after due service on appellants, was filed with the clerk of the Superior Court February 11, 1901; and that the case was not reached for trial until April 19, 1901. Then, and not until then, did appellants make a motion to strike said cause from off the short cause calendar.

Under these circumstances it is not necessary for us to examine the grounds upon which such motion was based, other than to note that they do not touch the merits of the controversy, but set forth an alleged irregularity only. It was the duty of appellants to make this motion at the first opportunity. Instead of so doing they waited two and one-half months and until the case was called for trial. The court below properly overruled the motion. Treftz v. Stahl, 46 Ill. App. 462; Johnston v. Brown, 51 Ill. App. 549; Stewart v. Carbray, 59 Ill. App. 397; Wheatley v. Chicago T. & S. Bk., 64 Ill. App. 612; Belinski v. Brand, 76 Ill. App. 404; McGuire v. Gilbert, 99 Ill. App. 517.

The judgment of the Superior Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 Ill. App. 486, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freund-v-huylers-illappct-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack