{
  "id": 2583403,
  "name": "A. B. McDavid v. Frank Sutton",
  "name_abbreviation": "McDavid v. Sutton",
  "decision_date": "1902-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "626",
  "last_page": "627",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 Ill. App. 626"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "105 Ill. 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2789722
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/105/0217-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 138,
    "char_count": 1885,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.614,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08234553443077183
    },
    "sha256": "a835fb624331df02902a132e11342985c9b906ed18232723a1b8d18c66769003",
    "simhash": "1:ad5f4ecf29be279f",
    "word_count": 335
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:57.519371+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. B. McDavid v. Frank Sutton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Wright\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nBy the decree in this case plaintiff in error, upon conditions with which defendant in error is willing to comply, is ordered to convey to the latter a freehold estate. Upon refusal of plaintiff in error to accept payment to him of $100.81, the master in chancery is directed to make such conveyance. By the execution of the decree defendant in error gains and plaintiff in error loses a freehold estate, and this is the test by which it is determined whether a freehold is directly involved. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Watson, 105 Ill. 217. Plaintiff in error being unwilling to comply with the terms of the decree by which he would be deprived of a freehold estate, seeks by the writ of error in this case to have this court reverse it, and the defendant in error has moved the court to dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, because a freehold is involved. A freehold is, in our opinion, directly involved, and the motion to dismiss the writ of error will therefore be sustained.\nThe writ of error will therefore be dismissed for the want of jurisdiction of this court, with leave to the respective parties to withdraw the record, abstracts and briefs, if they so desire.\nWrit of error dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Wright"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Raymond D. Meeker and Mills Bros., attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "R. M. Peadro, attorney for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. B. McDavid v. Frank Sutton.\n1, Freeholds\u2014Test to Determine Whether One is Involved.\u2014The test as to whether or not a freehold is involved is to determine whether, as a result of the execution of the judgment or decree, one of the parties gains or loses a freehold estate.\nBill to Compel a Conveyance of land.-\u2014Error to the Circuit Court of Moultrie County; the Hon. William G. Cochran, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the - May term, 1903.\nDismissed.\nOpinion filed November 1, 1902.\nRaymond D. Meeker and Mills Bros., attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nR. M. Peadro, attorney for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0626-01",
  "first_page_order": 650,
  "last_page_order": 651
}