Oliver v. Hart

Illinois Supreme Court

Oliver v. Hart

35 Ill. 55

DecidedApril 15, 1864

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Ill. 55 (Oliver v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oliver v. Hart, 35 Ill. 55 (Ill. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It does not appear there was any agreement reduced to writing to postpone the trial of this cause to the second week. A mere verbal agreement to do so, the court was not hound to notice.

If attorneys or parties violate such agreement, we know of no remedy. We are, however, free to say that the facts being brought to the notice of the court, would have fully justified the court in reinstating the cause. It was a matter of discretion, under the circumstances, and is not revisable in this court.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, ■

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

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It does not appear there was any agreement reduced to writing to postpone the trial of this cause to the second week. A mere verbal agreement to do so, the court was not hound to notice.

If attorneys or parties violate such agreement, we know of no remedy. We are, however, free to say that the facts being brought to the notice of the court, would have fully justified the court in reinstating the cause. It was a matter of discretion, under the circumstances, and is not revisable in this court.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Ill. 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-hart-ill-1864.