{
  "id": 874310,
  "name": "Henry Beck et al. v. Mary E. Stoddard, executrix, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Beck v. Stoddard",
  "decision_date": "1905-03-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 11,533",
  "first_page": "370",
  "last_page": "371",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 Ill. App. 370"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "88 Ill. App. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5276596
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/88/0016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. App. 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5238768
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/73/0679-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Ill. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2938496
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/125/0426-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2166,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3174756520553901
    },
    "sha256": "3b88d67adbb7f69259ebeddafed7532de6e40de3d71b2d5af7a3089be61fe81d",
    "simhash": "1:a440d4cc1a03507f",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:51.732844+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Beck et al. v. Mary E. Stoddard, executrix, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal by Elsie J. Meissner Anderson from a decree of foreclosure and sale in favor of appellee.\nThe abstract of record filed in this case does not show that any exceptions were taken by appellant to .the master\u2019s report. The decree recites that exceptions were filed. Although not required to do so, we have examined the record with care for the exceptions referred to, but we have been unable to find that any have been preserved.\n\u201cThe practice is, when a party is dissatisfied with the finding of the master in chancery, he shall make distinct exceptions, so the court can readily understand what matters are at issue between the parties, otherwise it will be understood he acquiesces in the conclusions and findings of the master.\u201d Singer et al. v. Steele, 125 Ill. 426. \u201cAnd if he fails to except below, he cannot do so on error or appeal. A mere reference to exceptions in the decree no more supplies the absence from the record of specific objections, than does the recital of a motion for a new trial in a judgment at law obviate the necessity of such motion appearing in the bill of exceptions. It is obvious that a court of review cannot pass on exceptions in ignorance of what they were.\u201d Foster v. Van Ostern, 72 Ill. App. 310; Crown Coal & Tow Co. v. Thomas, 73 Ill. App. 679; Lebkuechner v. Moore, 88 Ill. App. 16.\nThe questions discussed in appellants\u2019 brief should have been raised by exceptions to the master\u2019s report, and the exceptions preserved in the record.\nThe decree is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Beach & Beach, for. appellants.",
      "Rosenthal, Kurz & Hirschl, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Beck et al. v. Mary E. Stoddard, executrix, etc.\nGen. No. 11,533.\n1. Decree\u2014when not subject to review. A decree based upon a master\u2019s report is not subject to review where no exceptions appear to have been filed to such report, notwithstanding such decree recites that exceptions were filed.\nForeclosure proceeding. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Axel Chytraus, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1903.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 7, 1905.\nBeach & Beach, for. appellants.\nRosenthal, Kurz & Hirschl, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0370-01",
  "first_page_order": 390,
  "last_page_order": 391
}