Johnson v. Theodoron, No. 17660.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtTHOMPSON
Citation324 Ill. 543,155 N.E. 481
Decision Date16 February 1927
Docket NumberNo. 17660.
PartiesJOHNSON et al. v. THEODORON.

324 Ill. 543
155 N.E. 481

JOHNSON et al.
v.
THEODORON.

No. 17660.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 16, 1927.


Action by Bennett J. C. Johnson and another against Peter D. Theodoron. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

[155 N.E. 482]


[324 Ill. 544]Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Hugo Pam, Judge.

Webster, Holmes & Holmgren, of Chicago (Daniel Webster, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Leesman & Roemer, of Chicago, for appellees.


THOMPSON, J.

This appeal is from a judgment entered in the superior court of Cook county in favor of appellees, Bennett J. C. Johnson and Ellis A. W. Johnson, against appellant, Peter D. Theodoron, in an action of assumpsit brought by appellees against appellant from damages alleged to have been suffered by appellees for failure on the part of appellant to perform an option for the sale of real estate. The declaration in the action was filed June 22., 1923, and the appearance of Peter D. Theodoron and Webster, Holmes & Holmgren as attorneys for appellant was filed July 2, 1923. Issue was joined, and the cause was placed on the trial call for November 28, 1924. It was held on the call until January 5, 1925, when one of the attorneys for appellant appeared in court and stated that Daniel Webster, another of appellant's attorneys, was a member of the General Assembly and was attending the sessions in Springfield except on Mondays and Fridays, and asked that the case be specially set at the head of the call for any Monday or Friday. In accordance with this request the court set the case specially at the head of the call for Friday, January 16, 1925, and thereafter, at the request of one of the attorneys for appellant, the case was specially set at the thead of the call on three subsequent Fridays, the last setting being March 13. When the case was called for trial on that day one of the attorneys for appellant filed the following affidavit:

[324 Ill. 545]‘Daniel Webster, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before the courts of this state, is a member of the firm of Webster, Holmes & Holmgren, and is a member of the senate of the Fifty-Fourth General Assembly of the state of Illinois, having been elected from the Twenty-Fifth senatorial district of Illinois; that said General Assembly is now in actual session, having begun on the 7th day of January, A. D. 1925, and will be in session until on or about the 30th day of June, A. D. 1925.

‘Affiant further states that prior to the filing of said suit, and at the time of the filing of said suit, this affiant was employed by the defendant, Peter D. Theodoron, as his attorney, and that this affiant has continually been the attorney for the defendant in this cause.

‘Affiant further states that said suit is a suit at law pending before this honorable court, which is a court of this state.

‘Affiant further states that he is in actual attendance on the sessions of the said Fifty-Fourth General Assembly, and that his attendance as attorney for the defendant in the above-entitled cause is necessary to a fair and proper trial of same.

‘Affiant further states that by virtue of the statute in such case made and provided, the above-entitled cause should be continued until ten days after the adjournment of the Fifty-Fourth General Assembly, which adjournment will take place on or about the 30th day of June, A. D. 1925.

‘Affiant further states that he is now in actual attendance upon the sessions of the Fifty-Fourth General Assembly of Illinois.

‘Further, affiant sayeth not.

‘Daniel Webster.’

The court refused to continue the case until ten days after the adjournment of the Fifty-Fourth General Assembly and reset the case at the head of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Poole & Creber Market Co. v. Breshears, No. 35244.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 21, 1939
    ...as to due process of law. People v. Rose, 207 Ill. 352; People v. Falk, 310 Ill. 282; People v. Love, 310 Ill. 558; Johnson v. Throdown, 324 Ill. 543; Winter v. Barrett, 352 Ill. 441; Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 327; Newland v. Marsh, 19 Ill. 376; C., M. & St. P. Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 4......
  • People ex rel. Schacht v. Main Ins. Co., No. 82-2281
    • United States
    • Illinois Appellate Court
    • April 21, 1983
    ...from determining in the first instance the admissibility of the evidence, is unconstitutional, citing Johnson v. Theodoron (1927), 324 Ill. 543, 155 N.E. 481. Since the court will not rule on the constitutionality of a statute unless necessary it is important to determine if the exhibit wou......
  • Collier v. Poe, No. 69739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 20, 1987
    ...upon the sessions of a legislative body was not a cause for continuance which a court was bound to recognize. Johnson v. Theodoron, 324 Ill. 543, 155 N.E. 481, 483 (1927). Thus absence of counsel in attendance in the Legislature is not in the absence of statute, a sufficient cause for conti......
  • Thilman & Co. v. Esposito, No. 81119
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 28, 1980
    ...is proper. (Jarvis v. Shacklock (1871), 60 Ill. 378; Condon v. Brockway (1895), 157 Ill. 90, 41 N.E. 634; Johnson v. Theodoron (1927), 324 Ill. 543, 155 N.E. 481.) Defendants' motion for rehearing was continued four times before the motion was denied, and two of those occasions were at the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Poole & Creber Market Co. v. Breshears, No. 35244.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 21, 1939
    ...as to due process of law. People v. Rose, 207 Ill. 352; People v. Falk, 310 Ill. 282; People v. Love, 310 Ill. 558; Johnson v. Throdown, 324 Ill. 543; Winter v. Barrett, 352 Ill. 441; Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 327; Newland v. Marsh, 19 Ill. 376; C., M. & St. P. Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 4......
  • People ex rel. Schacht v. Main Ins. Co., No. 82-2281
    • United States
    • Illinois Appellate Court
    • April 21, 1983
    ...from determining in the first instance the admissibility of the evidence, is unconstitutional, citing Johnson v. Theodoron (1927), 324 Ill. 543, 155 N.E. 481. Since the court will not rule on the constitutionality of a statute unless necessary it is important to determine if the exhibit wou......
  • Collier v. Poe, No. 69739
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 20, 1987
    ...upon the sessions of a legislative body was not a cause for continuance which a court was bound to recognize. Johnson v. Theodoron, 324 Ill. 543, 155 N.E. 481, 483 (1927). Thus absence of counsel in attendance in the Legislature is not in the absence of statute, a sufficient cause for conti......
  • Thilman & Co. v. Esposito, No. 81119
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 28, 1980
    ...is proper. (Jarvis v. Shacklock (1871), 60 Ill. 378; Condon v. Brockway (1895), 157 Ill. 90, 41 N.E. 634; Johnson v. Theodoron (1927), 324 Ill. 543, 155 N.E. 481.) Defendants' motion for rehearing was continued four times before the motion was denied, and two of those occasions were at the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT