{
  "id": 2836779,
  "name": "Cora Rankin Rufty, Appellee, v. Warren Rankin, Jr., Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rufty v. Rankin",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "484",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 Ill. App. 484"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2242,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "aa346ebb19b4202d30e27886125fb2d253d6db739e667f81d0db0bb273649de9",
    "simhash": "1:6dfecaf5802e9412",
    "word_count": 366
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:27.806602+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cora Rankin Rufty, Appellee, v. Warren Rankin, Jr., Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McBride"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. E. Cook and C. E. Hoiles, for appellant.",
      "Cicero J. Lindly and C. E. Davidson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cora Rankin Rufty, Appellee, v. Warren Rankin, Jr., Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Bond county; the Hon. Louis Bernreuter, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nPetition by Cora Rankin Rufty for a citation against Warren Rankin, Jr., to compel Mm, as executor, to inventory certain personalty as the property of the estate of Warren Rankin, Sr. The respondent filed an answer and claimed that a copartnership existed between him and the deceased and that the property was partnership property. Prom an order determining that the property was the sole property of the estate of the decedent, the respondent appeals.\nC. E. Cook and C. E. Hoiles, for appellant.\nCicero J. Lindly and C. E. Davidson, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 300 \u2014when order to executor to inventory property is final. Where, upon the hearing of a petition to compel an executor to inventory certain property as belonging to the estate which the executor claims belonged to a partnership that existed between deceased and himself, the order of the court determines that the property belongs to the estate and orders it to be so inventoried, such order is a final and appealable order.\n2. Partnership, \u00a7 48 \u2014how existence determined. In determining whether a partnership exists, if the agreement is not in writing, the intention of the parties must be ascertained from their language and conduct:\n3. Partnership, \u00a7 52 \u2014evidence sufficient to show existence of. On a petition to require an executor to inventory property that he claimed belonged to a partnership that existed between deceased and himself, petitioner proved admissions by the respondent, made soon after the death, that he had no interest in the property. Respondent testified he held the property under a verbal partnership agreement and many witnesses stated they dealt with deceased as a partner of respondent and that deceased declared a partnership existed. Held, a partnership existed.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number,"
  },
  "file_name": "0484-01",
  "first_page_order": 506,
  "last_page_order": 507
}