{
  "id": 2951307,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, for use of Herschel M. Byall, Administrator, Appellant, v. Anna M. Rigdon and Federal Union Surety Company, Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Byall v. Rigdon",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,673",
  "first_page": "309",
  "last_page": "310",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 309"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3524,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.239482728339918e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5109095163463198
    },
    "sha256": "0f83b8b0c182f4776c6f52868f88e2371a6a895f30484b1e61abdd5af42d5b88",
    "simhash": "1:307cc75d72ea50cd",
    "word_count": 586
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, for use of Herschel M. Byall, Administrator, Appellant, v. Anna M. Rigdon and Federal Union Surety Company, Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for appellant; T. A. Sheehan, o\u00b0 counsel.",
      "Dave O. Dunbar, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, for use of Herschel M. Byall, Administrator, Appellant, v. Anna M. Rigdon and Federal Union Surety Company, Appellees.\nGen. No. 22,673.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William Fentmobe Cooper, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 12, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the People of the State of Illinois for use of Herschel M. Byall, administrator of the estate of Amy Young, deceased, plaintiff, against Anna M. Big-don and Federal Union Surety Company, defendants, to recover on an administrator\u2019s bond. From a judgment for defendants, on demurrer to amended declaration, the plaintiff appeals.\nThe amended declaration alleged the -appointment of the defendant Anna M. Bigdon as administratrix of the estate of Charles W. Bigdon, deceased, by the Probate Court of Cook county, and the execution of her bond as administratrix in the sum of $15,000, with the defendant Federal Union Surety Company, as surety, conditioned upon her well and truly administering the goods, etc., of the deceased and distributing the same to the persons and parties entitled thereto; that the deceased left surviving as his sole heirs said Anna M. Bigdon \u00e1nd Jay A. Bigdon; that inventory was filed and approved; that said Jay A. Bigdon assigned his interest in the estate for a valuable consideration to Amy Young, plaintiff\u2019s intestate; that notice of such assignment was given to said Anna M. Bigdon and spread of record in said court; that thereafter said Anna M. Bigdon filed her final account as such administratrix, showing that she had in her hands the distributive share of said Jay A. Rigdon, amounting to $20,000, to which but for such assignment he would be entitled; that the Probate Court thereupon entered an order directing the distribution of the estate to the parties entitled thereto and subsequently another order directing said Anna M. Rigdon as administratrix to deliver to said Jay A. Rigdon all the property and assets then in her hands belonging to him as heir of the deceased; and that said administratrix had failed and refused to deliver said distributive share to said Amy Young; that plaintiff had been appointed administratrix of the estate of said Amy Young, deceased.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Courts, \u00a7 56 \u2014how jurisdiction of subject-matter may not be given. Jurisdiction of a subject-matter of an action cannot be given to a court by consent of the parties.\n2. Courts, \u00a7 104*\u2014what is yoioer of Probate Court as to determination of rights and interests of assignee of heir\u2019s distributive share. The Probate Court has, as incidental to its jurisdiction to settle and distribute the assets of a decedent, the power to determine the rights and interests of an assignee of an heir of the decedent of such heir\u2019s distributive share in the estate.\n3. Executors and administrators, \u00a7 582*\u2014when action on bond by assignee of heir\u2019s distributive share does not lie. No action will lie upon an administrator\u2019s bond by the assignee of the decedent\u2019s heir of the latter\u2019s distributive share in the estate to recover the amount of such share paid to the heir by order of the Probate Court administering the estate.\nAlden, Latham & Young, for appellant; T. A. Sheehan, o\u00b0 counsel.\nDave O. Dunbar, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0309-01",
  "first_page_order": 335,
  "last_page_order": 336
}