{
  "id": 2855867,
  "name": "Chicago Title & Trust Company, Trustee, et al., Appellees, v. Maurice Franklin et al., Herbert W. Duncanson, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Franklin",
  "decision_date": "1912-06-24",
  "docket_number": "Glen. No. 18,848",
  "first_page": "388",
  "last_page": "389",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 388"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2091,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.72892633419842e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3591377335126488
    },
    "sha256": "b89895419e14a73ec456f9dc470cb05ac4b72fb8be92a0e9aed6a42da58f8603",
    "simhash": "1:ce29a730109db21c",
    "word_count": 337
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago Title & Trust Company, Trustee, et al., Appellees, v. Maurice Franklin et al., Herbert W. Duncanson, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 499-^iohero objection to amount of solicitor\u2019s fees not preserved for review. Objection to the amount of solicitor\u2019s fees allowed by a decree of foreclosure under the terms of a trust deed cannot be first raised on appeal.\n3. Principal and agent, \u00a7 179*\u2014when third party not liable as undisclosed principal. Where bonds are executed under seal in the name of a certain person, a third person cannot be held liable thereon as an undisclosed principal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for appellant.",
      "Henry W. Leman, for appellee Chicago Title & Trust Company.",
      "Felsenthal & Beckwith, for appellee Charles H. McIntyre.",
      "A. W. Martin and Edward H. S. Martin, for appellee Goldsmith."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago Title & Trust Company, Trustee, et al., Appellees, v. Maurice Franklin et al., Herbert W. Duncanson, Appellant.\nGlen. No. 18,848.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Subeoqatioit, \u00a7 3 \u2014when holder of bonds entitled to conventional subrogation. Where there is an arrangement between a company and a person executing bonds whereby the company took up the bonds to hold them uncaneelled until the person executing the bonds paid the same, the company holds the same under a right of conventional subrogation.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nAffirmed as modified.\nOpinion filed June 24, 1912.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Chicago Title and Trust Company, Trustee et al., against Maurice Franklin, Herbert W. Duncan-son et al., to foreclose a trust deed executed by Mandel Frankel under the name of Maurice Franklin to secure the payment of certain bonds. From a decree awarding a foreclosure, Herbert W. Duncanson appeals.\nAlden, Latham & Young, for appellant.\nHenry W. Leman, for appellee Chicago Title & Trust Company.\nFelsenthal & Beckwith, for appellee Charles H. McIntyre.\nA. W. Martin and Edward H. S. Martin, for appellee Goldsmith.\nSee Illinois Notes Bigest, Yols. XI to XY, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section numbei'o\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0388-01",
  "first_page_order": 414,
  "last_page_order": 415
}