{
  "id": 2950765,
  "name": "John Yangas, Appellant, v. Max Weinschenk et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Yangas v. Weinschenk",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,736",
  "first_page": "424",
  "last_page": "425",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 424"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 2013,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "sha256": "02242c79bc40f1e969d91d72c4c6fabc5f9735fa656687310c836233851f1a86",
    "simhash": "1:2e5bfa425e338aec",
    "word_count": 323
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Yangas, Appellant, v. Max Weinschenk et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Partnership, \u00a7 259*\u2014when evidence is sufficient to show- that partnership was not indebted to retiring partner. On a creditor\u2019s bill on a judgment against a retiring member of a partnership, evidence held sufficient to show that the partnership was not indebted to the partner at the time of the commencement of the suit",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwin White Moore, for appellant.",
      "Landon & Holt and Albert A. Kraft, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Yangas, Appellant, v. Max Weinschenk et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 22,736.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Partnership\u2014when evidence is sufficient to show termination of. Evidence held sufficient to warrant the finding that the co-partnership formerly existing between certain three defendants was terminated prior to the recovery of a pertain judgment against one of them, and that such one had thereafter no interest in the copartnership or in its funds except as an employee.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nCreditor\u2019s bill by John .Yangas, complainant, against Max Weinschenk, John Shuerger, John I. Bartley and the North Side State Savings Bank, defendants, on a judgment recovered by complainant against the defendant Weinschenk. From a decree dismissing the bill; complainant appeals.\nWeinschenk was alleged to be the owner of an undivided one-third interest in the Dearborn Baking Company, which kept its bank account with the defendant bank, and the bank admitted a deposit to the credit of that company. The other defendants denied that Weinschenk was a copartner in the company, which was a copartnership. The suit was referred to a master, who recommended dismissal of the bill, and exceptions to his report were overruled and the bill dismissed for want of equity.\nEdwin White Moore, for appellant.\nLandon & Holt and Albert A. Kraft, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0424-01",
  "first_page_order": 450,
  "last_page_order": 451
}