{ "id": 5320087, "name": "In the matter of the Estate of Vaclav Bastl, Deceased, Josie Simek, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Anna Urban, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Simek v. Urban", "decision_date": "1911-01-06", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,123", "first_page": "373", "last_page": "375", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "159 Ill. App. 373" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "82 Ill. 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313635 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "470" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/82/0463-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 247, "char_count": 4254, "ocr_confidence": 0.493, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15787484135175447 }, "sha256": "850c96a1e7cc4ada64cebed4f88a012fc142864dd9c18f6fff9b2998bceed823", "simhash": "1:a7a34db56067e042", "word_count": 746 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.030835+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In the matter of the Estate of Vaclav Bastl, Deceased, Josie Simek, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Anna Urban, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Mack\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nOn an appeal to the Circuit Court by the next of kin from an order confirming the report of appraisers as to a widow\u2019s award, the issue as to the proper amount was submitted to a jury, on a call of the short cause calendar, over the protest of the appellant and a personal judgment was entered on the verdict against appellant and in favor of the administratrix.\nA year later and after this appeal was perfected this judgment was set aside and \u00e1 judgment entered fixing the widow\u2019s award at the amount of the jury\u2019s verdict to be paid in due course of administration.\nThese judgments must be reversed.\nThe entire proceedings in the Circuit Court were erroneous. The appeal from the order of the Probate Court was not a suit at law to be tried on the short cause calendar. The appellant was therefore justified in not offering any evidence on that trial.\nIn Miller v. Miller, 82 Ill. 463, at 470, the Supreme Court says:\n\u201cWhile the statute does not, in express words, require that this estimate of value by the appraisers should be approved by the court, in order to give it binding force as such, it has long been the practice to do so, and it seems very appropriate that it should be so.\n\u201cThe county court, from its general powers in supervising the administration of estates, has the power, for cause shown, to s\u00e9t aside an appraisement bill, or a report of appraisers making out and certifying to that court an estimate of the value of the items of property mentioned in the statute as \u2018the widow\u2019s award,\u2019 and to order the appraisers to consider the subject again, and make another appraisement bill, or another estimate of the value of the items allowed by statute to the widow as the widow\u2019s award, and for cause shown, the court might remove the appraisers and appoint other appraisers, and charge them with these duties. But, while the county court has this supervisory authority, it has no power to revise and modify the appraisement bill or the appraisers\u2019 estimate of the value of the property allowed as the widow\u2019s award. The county court has no power to substitute the judgment of the court for the judgment of the appraisers, for the statute has made the estimate of the appraisers effective, and not an estimate made by the county court. As well might the circuit court, where a verdict of a jury has been returned, take up the verdict and revise and modify it, and enter this modified verdict as the verdict in the case.\n\u201cThe form of the judgment in the county court in this case is, \u2018that said award be approved, and that it be paid to said Kate L. Miller, widow of said decedent, in due course of administration. \u2019 The issue tried in this ease was made upon objections interposed by appellant against the approval of the award, which was, in substance, a motion or application on the part of appellant for .an order of the county court setting aside the award, and the judgment, in_ substance, is a judgment refusing to set the same aside.\n\u201cWhen the case came to the circuit court by appeal, the circuit court could not properly exercise any power in the case save that which the county court could and should have done. The Circuit Court, properly, could only have ordered the estimate of the appraisers to be set aside, or have refused to make such order.\u201d\nThe judgment rendered in the Circuit Court will be reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.\nReversed and remanded.\nMe. Justice Baldwin took no part in the decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Mack" } ], "attorneys": [ "Foster, Bradley & Stetson and Mortimer L. Samplyner, for appellants.", "Novak & Pollack, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the matter of the Estate of Vaclav Bastl, Deceased, Josie Simek, Administratrix, Appellee, v. Anna Urban, Appellant.\nGen. No. 15,123.\nAdministration of estates\u2014nature of appeal affecting widow\u2019s award. An appeal from an order confirming the report of appraisers as to a widow\u2019s award is not a suit at law to be tried on the short cause calendar.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthiix, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1908.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 6, 1911.\nFoster, Bradley & Stetson and Mortimer L. Samplyner, for appellants.\nNovak & Pollack, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0373-01", "first_page_order": 391, "last_page_order": 393 }