{
  "id": 2826640,
  "name": "Leonard Shadburne, Appellee, v. A. Sbarbaro, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shadburne v. Sbarbaro",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,776",
  "first_page": "54",
  "last_page": "55",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 54"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 1948,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "sha256": "668702a52865a472e5807ae84970607c6cdc4cdb806cd7e601af701ef630bf6e",
    "simhash": "1:067e491554258258",
    "word_count": 314
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Leonard Shadburne, Appellee, v. A. Sbarbaro, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard I. Gavin, for appellant; Gavin & Mayer and George E. Swartz, of counsel.",
      "Frederick A. Brown, for appellee; Brown & Ewen and Kendall & Luby, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Leonard Shadburne, Appellee, v. A. Sbarbaro, Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,776.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Leonard Shadburne against A. Sbarbaro for dissolution of a partnership and an accounting. From a decree in favor of complainant for $3,720.25, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Partnership, \u00a7 377 \u2014when master's report sufficient. In proceeding for dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting, a master\u2019s report sufficiently itemizes the amounts found to he due to the complainant without giving the details of the several items, where the itemized statement leaves no doubt as to what was included in the total.\n2. Partnership, \u00a7 422*\u2014when decree in accounting may be entered without first settling partnership affairs. Decree finding the amount due on an accounting may be entered without first settling the partnership affairs, where the defendant filed a bond to secure payment of any amount which might be found due to complainant, retained the assets and did not offer to show there was no such settlement.\n3. Partnership, \u00a7 52*\u2014when evidence sufficient to establish partnership as between the parties. Finding in favor of the existence of a partnership held sustained by the evidence, where the evidence as to the agreement is conflicting, but there is uncontroverted evidence that defendant held plaintiff out as a partner and that he received from plaintiff cash and credits used in the business.\nRichard I. Gavin, for appellant; Gavin & Mayer and George E. Swartz, of counsel.\nFrederick A. Brown, for appellee; Brown & Ewen and Kendall & Luby, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0054-01",
  "first_page_order": 78,
  "last_page_order": 79
}