Gaynor v. Crandall, Rasch & Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Gaynor v. Crandall, Rasch & Co.

44 Ill. App. 511, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 649

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 7, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 Ill. App. 511 (Gaynor v. Crandall, Rasch & Co.) 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

Gaynor v. Crandall, Rasch & Co., 44 Ill. App. 511, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 649 (Ill. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

"Waterman,, P. J.

It is to be regretted that any cause should be disposed of as this was in the absence of the defendant, who claimed to have and expected to make a defense thereto.

In one respect appellant failed, indeed made no attempt to do what it was her duty to have done. She seems at least as early as Saturday, if not the previous Wednesday, to have known that she, a necessary witness, would lie unable to be present on Monday. As soon as she became aware of this she ought at once to have notified the plaintiff. It is the duty of a party who does not expect to be ready for trial, and who proposes to ask for a continuance, to, at the earliest moment, notify his adversary, in order that he may not be put to unnecessary trouble and expense, and may, having knowledge of the situation, govern himself accordingly.

Appellant having suffered the plaintiff to remain in ignorance of her intention to apply for a continuance, we do not feel warranted in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Superior Court in refusing to set aside this judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

"Waterman,, P. J.

It is to be regretted that any cause should be disposed of as this was in the absence of the defendant, who claimed to have and expected to make a defense thereto.

In one respect appellant failed, indeed made no attempt to do what it was her duty to have done. She seems at least as early as Saturday, if not the previous Wednesday, to have known that she, a necessary witness, would lie unable to be present on Monday. As soon as she became aware of this she ought at once to have notified the plaintiff. It is the duty of a party who does not expect to be ready for trial, and who proposes to ask for a continuance, to, at the earliest moment, notify his adversary, in order that he may not be put to unnecessary trouble and expense, and may, having knowledge of the situation, govern himself accordingly.

Appellant having suffered the plaintiff to remain in ignorance of her intention to apply for a continuance, we do not feel warranted in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Superior Court in refusing to set aside this judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Ill. App. 511, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaynor-v-crandall-rasch-co-illappct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack