{
  "id": 5788766,
  "name": "In the Matter of the Estate of Louis Kane, a/k/a Lewis Kane, Deceased. Maurice Solar, Appellant-Executor, v. Mildred Kane, Appellee-Widow",
  "name_abbreviation": "Solar v. Kane",
  "decision_date": "1961-05-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 48,328",
  "first_page": "470",
  "last_page": "473",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 2d 470"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 N.E.2d 422",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. App. 2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5190569
      ],
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/19/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. App. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        854278
      ],
      "year": 1885,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/16/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N.E.2d 483",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill. 2d 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2711587
      ],
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "544"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/7/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.E.2d 606",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "375 Ill. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2535390
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/375/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N.E.2d 44",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 Ill. App. 655",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4982428
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "659-60"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/320/0655-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.E. 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1905,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 Ill. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3359279
      ],
      "year": 1905,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "173"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/216/0166-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 365,
    "char_count": 4987,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.041502013137156e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3740358993902733
    },
    "sha256": "80693d7709231ba9d4d78f48f48b6ca35d78e5efe894b4a90533326359853993",
    "simhash": "1:01a194845c84996f",
    "word_count": 836
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:22.200012+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "MURPHY and BURMAN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In the Matter of the Estate of Louis Kane, a/k/a Lewis Kane, Deceased. Maurice Solar, Appellant-Executor, v. Mildred Kane, Appellee-Widow."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE KILEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from an order denying the executor\u2019s petition for admission of a will to probate. The petition was dismissed on the ground urged by the decedent\u2019s widow that \u201cthe residence and domicile of the deceased at the time of his demise was Tucson, Arizona.\u201d\nAssuming, but not deciding, decedent\u2019s domicile at the time of his death was in Arizona, the question is whether probate in Illinois was properly denied.\nOur Supreme Court in Chicago Terminal Transfer R.R. Co. v. Winslow, 216 Ill. 166, 173, 74 N.E. 815 (1905), states: \u201cWhile the rule, generally speaking, is that a will should be probated in the first instance at the testator\u2019s domicile, it is subject to the exception, which is almost as broad as the rule itself, that it may be probated in any county in any state where the testator had and left assets, particularly real estate.\u201d (citations omitted). This court, referring to that statement, in In re Estate of Nielsen, 320 Ill. App. 655, 659-60, 52 N.E.2d 44 (1943), said: \u201cWe find nothing in the provisions of the Illinois Probate Act . . . which indicates any legislative intention to change this rule.\u201d It went on to hold that a will executed in Ulinois in conformity with the laws of Ulinois and disposing of property situated therein to residents of Illinois, is admissible to probate in Illinois. See also Restatement, Conflict of Laws \u00a7 \u00a7 467 (b), 469, comment c (1934); Furst v. Brady, 375 Ill. 425, 31 N.E.2d 606 (1941).\nThe Probate Act, section 55, provides: \u201cFor the purpose of granting administration of . . . estates of non-resident decedents, the situs of tangible personal estate is where it is located and the situs of intangible personal estate is where the instrument evidencing a debt, obligation, stock or chose in action happens to be . . . .\u201d Ill. Eev. Stat. ch 3, \u00a7 207 (1959). The widow contends that, by virtue of that provision, In re Neilsen\u2019s Estate is inapplicable to the instant case because \u201cno where in the record is there any affirmative proof or allegation of personalty having a situs in Cook County, Illinois.\u201d A bank account is a chose in action, People ex rel. Housing Authority v. Hursey, 7 Ill. 2d 537, 544, 131 N.E.2d 483 (1956), and the widow argues that the instrument evidencing a bank\u2019s obligation \u201cwould be the pass book.\u201d\nThe executor, in his verified petition for admission of the will to probate, alleged that decedent had personal estate in this state not to exceed $30,-000. In his answer to the widow\u2019s motion to dismiss he alleges that \u201cdecedent had assets in excess of . . . $10,000 . . . located in Cook County, Illinois at the time of his death.\u201d These allegations are not denied. And the widow\u2019s attorney told the court: \u201cThe property that we have in Illinois is a bank account at the Chicago Federal Savings and Loan.\u201d These admissions obviated the necessity of formal proof of the \u201csitus\u201d and the \u201cpass book.\u201d Advance Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. Eddy, 16 Ill. App. 263 (1885); 34 I.L.P., Trial \u00a7 42 (1958).\nFinally, the executor\u2019s verified motion to dismiss the widow\u2019s petition alleges that the will was executed in Hlinois in conformity with Hlinois laws, and that it disposed of property situated in Illinois to at least one resident of Illinois. This sworn statement of fact is not controverted by the widow in pleading, nor by evidence. The brief filed in this court in behalf of the widow does not effectively argue against the executor\u2019s contention that no controversy exists about these points.\nWe think that In re Nielsen\u2019s Estate controls onr decision on the record before us. The case of In re Estate of Hinshaw, 19 Ill. App. 2d 239, 153 N.E.2d 422 (1958), is distinguished. There, reliance was upon a \u201ccontingent liability insurance contract\u201d as the \u201clocal property or estate.\u201d There was no allegation that \u201cdecedent left any property which could be regarded as an asset in Illinois,\u201d or where any property was located, of what it consisted or any description of it. A verified pleading denied that decedent had any property in Hlinois.\nWe hold that the proponent of the will was entitled to have it admitted to probate in Hlinois and it was error for the court to dismiss the executor\u2019s petition for admission of the will to probate.\nWe have considered the only points relevant to our decision.\nFor the reasons given the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nMURPHY and BURMAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE KILEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Whitman and Goodman, of Chicago (Charles \"Whitman and M. Leonard Goodman, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Francis E. Powers, of Chicago (Francis E. Powers, Herbert P. Veldenz and Vera Cnthbert, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In the Matter of the Estate of Louis Kane, a/k/a Lewis Kane, Deceased. Maurice Solar, Appellant-Executor, v. Mildred Kane, Appellee-Widow.\nGen. No. 48,328.\nFirst District, First Division.\nMay 22, 1961.\nWhitman and Goodman, of Chicago (Charles \"Whitman and M. Leonard Goodman, of counsel), for appellant.\nFrancis E. Powers, of Chicago (Francis E. Powers, Herbert P. Veldenz and Vera Cnthbert, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0470-01",
  "first_page_order": 482,
  "last_page_order": 485
}