{
  "id": 5382592,
  "name": "H. L. Hollister, Appellant, v. Samuel Dinsmore, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hollister v. Dinsmore",
  "decision_date": "1915-02-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,916",
  "first_page": "377",
  "last_page": "378",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 377"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3219,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.112724912833455e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42712837698259626
    },
    "sha256": "b44f57ac3b6f81ced2c18df9b93bd37473e39f9bc3f98306d218bcb4f40ded2e",
    "simhash": "1:5179c3439e0bb4c0",
    "word_count": 552
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. L. Hollister, Appellant, v. Samuel Dinsmore, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. ' Trover and conversion, \u00a7 34 \u2014joinder of trover and case. It is permissible to join counts in trover and in case in the same declaration.\n3. Trover and conversion, \u00a7 34*\u2014propriety of declaration in case and trover. Upon a declaration in trespass on the case and in trover for the conversion of a certificate of stock intrusted to a pledgor to sell and account for the proceeds to the pledgee, held the trial court erred in finding no recovery could be had except in assumpsit.\n4. Pledges, \u00a7 46*\u2014measure of damages for conversion 8y pledgor. Where a pledgor secures possession of stock in a corporation from his pledgee for the purpose of effecting a sale of the same and accounting for the proceeds to the pledgee, upon his failure to do so the measure of damages is the value of the collateral with interest from the time of the conversion, unless such amount exceeds the sum due the pledgee, and such value is, of course, material in a tort action.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harris F. Williams, for appellant; Eldon M. Votaw, of counsel.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. L. Hollister, Appellant, v. Samuel Dinsmore, Appellee.\nGen. No. 19,916.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Pledges, \u00a7 24 \u2014effect of conditional delivery of stock to pledg- or. Where it appeared that defendant executed and delivered a' note to plaintiff and deposited with him as collateral security a certificate of stock in a corporation, and that the note being not paid when due, defendant called at -plaintiff\u2019s office and requested permission to take the collateral, sell it and bring back the proceeds, saying that he had a chance to sell all his stock in the com-pany including that in plaintiff\u2019s hands, but that the purchaser wanted all or none, and the amount then due to plaintiff was computed and a demand note -for that amount made out and signed by defendant, and the collateral was delivered to him for the purpose and upon the understanding stated and defendant sold the stock but failed to account for the proceeds, held that the delivery of the stock by plaintiff to defendant was not an unconditional delivery of the same, but that defendant received it merely as the agent of the plaintiff for the special and limited purpose of selling the same for plaintiff\u2019s benefit, and that plaintiff\u2019s lien was not thereby lost, and the failure or refusal of defendant to return either the stock or the proceeds constituted a conversion.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Claeence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 4, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by H. L. Hollister against Samuel Dinsmore in trespass on the case and in trover. The trial court held \u201cthat the evidence introduced on behalf of the plaintiff did not tend to sustain an action other than in assumpsit. From a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nHarris F. Williams, for appellant; Eldon M. Votaw, of counsel.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0377-01",
  "first_page_order": 421,
  "last_page_order": 422
}