Case ID: ill-app_202/html/0341-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Chicago Daily News Company, Appellee, v. Jackson & Semmelmeyer, Corporation, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 21,994.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding. Heard' in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 30, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action in assumpsit by the Chicago Daily News Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Jackson & Semmelmeyer, a corporation, defendant, .to recover for an advertisement published by plaintiff for defendant. From an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Fred D. Jackson, for appellant.
    
      John J. Symes, for appellee.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Judgment, § 277
      
      —when denial of motion to vacate is proper. Where notice to place a cause on the short-cause calendar was given by plaintiff to defendant and filed with the clerk on Friday, May 28th, and the cause was heard and judgment entered against defendant, Tuesday, June 8th, eleven days thereafter, although the, rules of court designated Monday as the day of the week on which such cases were set for trial and Thursday, eleven days before such Monday, as the day on which service of the notice to place on such calendar should be filed, and defendant filed a motion to vacate such judgment accompanied by an affidavit based on the statement that it believed that because of the giving of such notice on Friday instead of on Thursday his cause would not be heard before Monday, June 14th, plaintiff did not resist such motion and the court suggested that it should be allowed, but defendant, for some undisclosed reason, withdrew the motion, pursuant to which an order, of the withdrawal was entered and execution on the judgment issued, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a second motion to vacate such judgment made on the following day, where no additional grounds were assigned and no explanation given for defendant’s change of attitude.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.