{
  "id": 2542312,
  "name": "Charles A. Paltzer v. Martha J. Johnston, Executrix, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Paltzer v. Johnston",
  "decision_date": "1904-06-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,541",
  "first_page": "493",
  "last_page": "494",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "114 Ill. App. 493"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "155 Ill. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        839761
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/155/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3007034
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/139/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill. 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2703032
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/74/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 245",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2617478
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/65/0245-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill. 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2842174
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/97/0389-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2786,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4120300063826115
    },
    "sha256": "0f41ff5a39f4f1614b7f4fbd6d6c8ee6f1f9ce61918e1a964bb2eb01cd76fee5",
    "simhash": "1:11874187f9ea2032",
    "word_count": 470
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:53:49.110006+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles A. Paltzer v. Martha J. Johnston, Executrix, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Stein\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAfter the full hearing of appellee\u2019s cross-bill and three days after the chancellor had announced orally his conclusions, ending by saying, \u201c Let a decree be prepared, dismissing the bill for want of equity,\u201d but before the formal entry of any decree, appellee moved to dismiss her cross-bill without prejudice, whereupon appellant moved to enter of record nunc pro tuno a final decree dismissing the bill for want of equity in pursuance of the oral opinion previously delivered. The court denied appellant\u2019s motion, granted appellee\u2019s, and entered a decree dismissing the cross-bill without prejudice at her costs. Th.e appeal is from that decree.\nCounsel for appellant has submitted an able and learned argument, in which he cites and quotes from many cases and authorities in support of his contention that the oral announcement and direction of the chancellor as above shown constitutes and is a decree rendered and pronounced by the court; that it is such without any entry thereof by the clerk; that such entry is a ministerial act, and merely the evidence of-the agtion of the court, and that appellant was not entitled to dismiss her bill without prejudice after the court had decided against her and given specific directions that it should be dismissed for want of equity.\nWhatever the rule may be elsewhere, under our practice a decree is not regarded as rendered, and is not rendered until it has been entered or filed of record, and a complainant has the right at any time before such entry or filing, to dismiss his bill where no cross-bill has been filed. Purdy v. Henslee, 97 Ill. 389; Hughs v. Washington, 65 Ill. 245; Mohler v. Wiltberger, 74 Ill. 163; Reilly v. Reilly, 139 Ill. 180; Langlois v. Matthiessen, 155 Ill. 230.\nIn Hughs v. Washington, supra, after a full discussion of the subject, the court say (p. 250): \u201cThere was, then, no decree of the court until it was approved and filed for record, or was recorded; and that was the time the case was decided and the decree rendered.\u201d\nThe decree appealed from is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Stein"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Willis Smith, for appellant,",
      "Masterson & Haft, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles A. Paltzer v. Martha J. Johnston, Executrix, etc.\nGen. No. 11,541.\n1. Decree\u2014when, not regarded as rendered. A decree in this state is not regarded as having been rendered until it has been entered or filed of record.\n2. Dismissal\u2014complainant\u2019s right of. A complainant has the right at any time before the entry or filing of a decree to dismiss his bill, where no cross-bill has been filed.\nForeclosure proceeding. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Axel ChytraTJS, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1903,\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 17, 1904.\nWillis Smith, for appellant,\nMasterson & Haft, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0493-01",
  "first_page_order": 509,
  "last_page_order": 510
}