{
  "id": 2874105,
  "name": "Edward J. Baker, Appellee, v. J. Verne Benjamin and Fred Meyer, Defendants, on appeal of Fred Meyer, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Benjamin",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,860",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "18",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 17"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2844,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "1c044031736aa8e05804e88168a7362ddcbf775f9d745f2c079eab1be6979945",
    "simhash": "1:5d47fa55942c72e8",
    "word_count": 484
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward J. Baker, Appellee, v. J. Verne Benjamin and Fred Meyer, Defendants, on appeal of Fred Meyer, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles E. Selleck, for appellant.",
      "Samuel G. Hamblen, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward J. Baker, Appellee, v. J. Verne Benjamin and Fred Meyer, Defendants, on appeal of Fred Meyer, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,860.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Clarence N. Goodwin, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1915.\nRehearing denied October 11, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill in equity to cancel a note and chattel mortgage by Edward J. Baker against J. Verne Benjamin and Fred Meyer. Plaintiff conducted a tin shop and went to Benjamin, a loan broker, to obtain a loan of five hundred dollars. The latter agreed to procure it, and Baker executed a note and chattel mortgage on the property in the tin shop which were delivered to Benjamin together with an assignment of accounts. Later, Benjamin gave his note to Meyer to cover an indebtedness and, as collateral thereto, Baker\u2019s note and mortgage. Meyer was advised that the Baker note was non-negotiable and called at the tin shop to inquire about the same but Baker was absent and his conversation was with Baker\u2019s brother. The Baker note was for five hundred and fifty dollars, but he was to receive only five hundred dollars. Baker signed and received a receipt for fifty dollars, but he claimed that no money was paid and the transaction was merely to cover up usury. This bill was filed because the loan was not consummated, and a receiver was appointed to take possession pf the note, mortgage and assignment. The case was referred to a master who found that the fifty dollars for which the receipt was given was not paid, and that the assignment of accounts, note and mortgage were without consideration.\nCharles E. Selleck, for appellant.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1399 \u2014when findings of master will not be disturbed. A court\u2019s approval of a master\u2019s finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless obviously incorrect.\n2. Cancellation of instruments, \u00a7 12 \u2014when note and mortgage may be canceled. A maker of a note and chattel mortgage is not estopped from having same canceled, after being transferred to a third person, when such note and mortgage are without consideration and no statement is made by the maker to the third person that there was a valuable consideration.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 499 \u2014when question of receiver's compensation will not be reviewed on appeal. Where a decree approves a receiver\u2019s report and discharges him, and there is nothing to indicate that the question of compensation was brought before the court, error cannot be assigned because the court did not take up such matter on its own motion.\nSamuel G. Hamblen, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 43,
  "last_page_order": 44
}