{
  "id": 2641553,
  "name": "Neosha M. Mills, Appellee, v. Walter Teel, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mills v. Teel",
  "decision_date": "1909-05-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "519",
  "last_page": "520",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "149 Ill. App. 519"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 1652,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "sha256": "bdd77a0390456921483cc55dbb8770ac17641acde37377ad8c684ca002d91836",
    "simhash": "1:11c06bc9ae879260",
    "word_count": 277
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:09:08.605946+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Neosha M. Mills, Appellee, v. Walter Teel, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Puterbaugh\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action in forcible entry and detainer by appellee against appellant, by which she seeks to recover possession of certain real estate which she claims appellant wrongfully withholds from her. A trial was had before the court without a jury, which resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee. Appellant contended upon the trial that he had been appointed, had qualified, and at the time of the commencement of the suit was acting as conservator of appellee, and as such was entitled to possession, while appellee contended that such appointment was void for the reason that at the time the same was made the County Court had no jurisdiction of her person. The position of appellant in this court is that he was at the time and under the circumstances, conservator de facto and that his acts as such cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding. The question presented is purely a legal one, and inasmuch as no propositions of law were submitted to the trial court, there is nothing for this court to review, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Puterbaugh"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Glass & Bottenberg, for appellant.",
      "D. L. Mourning and B. O. Willard, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Neosha M. Mills, Appellee, v. Walter Teel, Appellant.\nPractice\u2014effect of failure to present propositions of law. No questions of law are preserved for review unless they arise upon the pleadings or upon rulings upon evidence.\nForcible entry and detainer. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Schuyler county; the Hon. Guy R. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the November term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 19, 1909.\nGlass & Bottenberg, for appellant.\nD. L. Mourning and B. O. Willard, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0519-01",
  "first_page_order": 537,
  "last_page_order": 538
}