{
  "id": 2967975,
  "name": "R. G. Herndon et al., Complainants, v. The Herndon Corporation et al., Defendants; On Appeal of Gertrude Vanderbilt, Appellant, v. Hans Bartsch, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Herndon v. Herndon Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,391",
  "first_page": "576",
  "last_page": "577",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 576"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3379,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.585,
    "sha256": "c5dc866bf2606faf9a7102623c5faf5afd397550cdaa5d4b8da42806aa41d7ac",
    "simhash": "1:2eb9e777561f1400",
    "word_count": 562
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. G. Herndon et al., Complainants, v. The Herndon Corporation et al., Defendants. On Appeal of Gertrude Vanderbilt, Appellant, v. Hans Bartsch, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adolph Marks and Elijah N. Zoline, for appellant; Elijah N. Zoline, of counsel.",
      "E. S. Hartman, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. G. Herndon et al., Complainants, v. The Herndon Corporation et al., Defendants. On Appeal of Gertrude Vanderbilt, Appellant, v. Hans Bartsch, Appellee.\nGen. No. 22,391.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscab E. Hbabd, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.\nAppeal dismissed.\nOpinion filed October 30, 1916.\nRehearing denied and supplemental opinion filed November 13, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill in chancery by B. G. Herndon and Glenn Hall, complainants, against the Herndon Corporation, Lonis Dreyfnss, V. Knnst, otherwise known as Valli Valli, Hans Bartsch and H. Mahieu Company, Inc., defendants, on the appeal of Gertrude Vanderbilt, appellant, against Hans Bartsch, appellee, in the Circuit Court of Cook county. From an order vacating and setting aside a previous order authorizing a receiver to solicit bids for the sale of certain property thought to be assets of the corporation, and finding that the property was not such an asset, appellant appeals.\nAppellant was not a party to the proceedings but had filed a claim with the receiver alleging that she was a creditor of the corporation. On petition for rehearing it appeared by a supplemental record that appellant had obtained leave to file an intervening petition, which had been done, and that certain defendants had filed a cross-bill, making appellant a defendant.\nAdolph Marks and Elijah N. Zoline, for appellant; Elijah N. Zoline, of counsel.\nE. S. Hartman, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 338 \u2014who may review judgment. In order to maintain a writ of error to review a judgment or decree, the plaintiff in error must be either a party to the record, or sustain some mutual or successive relationship to the subject-matter of the litigation or the parties, out of which arises the right, duty or privilege to have the judgment reviewed, or he must have some direct or collateral interest injuriously affected by the judgment upon which to rest a right to a review.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 348*\u2014what record must show to entitle one to appeal. Where an appellant is not a party to the record, her right to appeal from the judgment or decree must affirmatively appear from the assignment of errors.\nOn Rehearing.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 340*\u2014when intervening petitioner may appeal. \u2018One who has obtained leave to file and has filed an intervening petition in proceedings in which a receiver has been appointed, and who has been made defendant in a cross-bill by certain defendants to the original proceeding, has the right to appeal from any appeal-able order.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 315*\u2014when order vacating order of sale not appealable. In chancery proceedings against a corporation wherein a receiver has been appointed, an order vacating and setting aside a previous order authorizing the receiver to solicit bids for the sale of certain property supposed to be an asset of the corporation, finding that such property is not subject to such sale at that stage of the proceedings and expressly reserving the determination of the questions involved for further hearing, is not a final order from which an appeal can be maintained.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0576-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 619
}