{
  "id": 2592123,
  "name": "E. Loenna Elmstedt v. The People, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elmstedt v. People",
  "decision_date": "1902-05-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "231",
  "last_page": "232",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "102 Ill. App. 231"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2238,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "sha256": "07fd36e0e792f4b8b4aec523c29f4c22791e6a5cf15026be4d193d062a12a769",
    "simhash": "1:af1e6f42d48951cb",
    "word_count": 383
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:51:35.524386+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. Loenna Elmstedt v. The People, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nCounsel for appellant contend that the order removing appellant as executrix and appointing the State Bank administrator de bonis non ivas void. There is no reason for regarding these orders void. The court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the party. The order to turn over property in her hands not being void, a failure to obey it, although it were erroneous, was a contempt of court. Uapalje on Contempt, Secs. 15, 16 and 17.\nWe find in the order of commitment no such error as warrants a reversal. The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. J. Cooney and H. S. Miller, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "Deneen & Hamill, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. Loenna Elmstedt v. The People, etc.\n1. Contempt of Court\u2014In Failing to Obey Orders.\u2014Failure to obey an order of court, although such order may be erroneous, is a contempt of court.\nContempt of Court.\u2014Error to the Probate Court of Cook County; the Hon. John H. Batten, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1901.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 23, 1902.\nStatement.\u2014January 10,1895, John Elmstedt died. January 17, 1895, his will was probated, and letters testamentary were issued to E. Loenna Elmstedt, his widow, who received the assets of the estate, and from that date until January 17, 1898, administered upon the same. January 17, 1898, she was, by the Probate Court, removed as executrix of the estate for not complying with the order of that court heretofore entered, and the State Bank of Chicago was appointed administrator de bonis non, with will annexed, and entered upon its duties as administrator.\nJuly 13, 1900, an order was entered by the Probate Court directing E. Loenna Elmstedt, within ten days from date, to pay to the State Bank of Chicago, as administrator, etc., of the estate of John Elmstedt, the sum of $5,372.66, and give to it certain described written orders for other properties belonging to the estate. For a failure to comply with this order she was, October 8,1900, committed to the county jail for contempt of court until she should comply with said order or until the further order of the court, or until delivered according to law.\nR. J. Cooney and H. S. Miller, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nDeneen & Hamill, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0231-01",
  "first_page_order": 247,
  "last_page_order": 248
}