{
  "id": 2583134,
  "name": "Kingan & Co., Limited, v. Estate of Edward S. Burns",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kingan & Co. v. Estate of Burns",
  "decision_date": "1902-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "661",
  "last_page": "662",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 Ill. App. 661"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 3473,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.848989183728895e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41755774178340127
    },
    "sha256": "8b34c8cf2d65ffd0e4c878288ef96fdc9b8c5a7c52b645dc787587945b8d0d98",
    "simhash": "1:32862bd842889468",
    "word_count": 597
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:57.519371+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kingan & Co., Limited, v. Estate of Edward S. Burns."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nOn October 23, 1893, Edwards A. Burns died, and on November 30th of that year letters of administration having been issued from the County Court of Montgomery County, appellant filed its claim of \u00a731.63 against the estate. It was an open account for merchandise. No action was taken on the claim on the day of adjustment, which was fixed for the first Monday of February, 1894, and no order concerning it was entered until the September term, 1901, when there was a hearing before the County Court, and the claim disallowed. An appeal was prosecuted to the Circuit Court, where a trial was had without a jury, resulting in the claim being disallowed. From \u201e the order thus entered appeal is prosecuted.\nIn the Circuit Court an allowance of the claim was resisted upon the following grounds:\n1. The same ivas not properly verified, there being no evidence that the officer (a notary public in the State- of Indiana), who signed the jurat attached to the affidavit of claim, had authority to administer oaths.\n2. The claim was barred by the statute of limitations.\n3. There was no sufficient evidence to support it.\nCounsel for appellee rely upon the same points in this court, contending that either one is conclusive of appellant\u2019s case. As we view it, it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion upon either of the first two points.\nSection 60, chapter 3 of the .Revised Statutes, provides that if no objection is made to a claim by the administrator or others interested in the estate, and the claimant shall swear \u201c that such claim is just and unpaid after allowing all just credits, the court may allow such claim without further evidence; but if objection is made to such claim the same shall not be admitted without other sufficient evidence.\u201d There was no evidence in support of the claim other than the ex parte affidavit of appellant\u2019s agent, which was made in Indiana and attached to the claim. The claim being-contested, and there being no \u201c other sufficient evidence \u201d produced to support it, the court could do nothing else than disallow it.\nCounsel for appellant, in his printed brief, and also in his oral argument, has said that the only objections made to the allowance of the claim in the Circuit Court was the one invoking the statute of limitations, and the one involving the verification of the affidavit, and that the third objection was not made at all.. It is sufficient for us to say that the bill of exceptions shows that such objection was specifically made. We can know nothing of what occurred in the court below, of course, except as it is recited in the record. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William Abbot, attorney for appellant.",
      "Lane & Cooper, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kingan & Co., Limited, v. Estate of Edward S. Burns.\n1. Administration of Estates\u2014Allowanceof Claims under Section 60, Chap. 3, B. S.\u2014Section <60, Chap. 3, R. S., provides that if no objection is made to a claim by the administrator or others interested in the estate and the claimant shall swear that such claim is just and unpaid after allowing all just credits, the court may allow such claim without further evidence; but if objection is made to such claim the same shall not be admitted without other sufficient evidence.\nClaim in Probate.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County; the Hon. Truman E. Ames, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1902.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 1, 1902.\nWilliam Abbot, attorney for appellant.\nLane & Cooper, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0661-01",
  "first_page_order": 685,
  "last_page_order": 686
}