{
  "id": 2949164,
  "name": "James E. Johnson, Conservator, Appellant, v. W. O. Taff, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Taff",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "546",
  "last_page": "547",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 546"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2380,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "7312779ca7b0a9ef5e41c9755aafe8f03643f5e97438a846910217d35fc973d2",
    "simhash": "1:c0a5c3dc6801a69a",
    "word_count": 410
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James E. Johnson, Conservator, Appellant, v. W. O. Taff, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n5. Cancellation of instruments, \u00a7 5 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show execution of instruments under standingly and of free will by loar\u00e1. The preponderance of the evidence held to show that complainant\u2019s ward executed certain instruments understandingly and of her own free will, in a suit to set aside such instruments on the ground of fraud and undue influence in their execution.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stevens & Herndon, for appellant.",
      "Davis McKeown, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James E. Johnson, Conservator, Appellant, v. W. O. Taff, Appellee.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Equity, \u00a7 482 \u2014when complainant not entitled to decree. Although a complainant may make out by proof a case which entitles him to relief, yet he can have no decree unless the allegallons of the bill-are adapted to the case proved.\n2. Parent and child, \u00a7 65*\u2014presumption as to fraud or undue influence. There is no presumption of law that a conveyance from a parent to a child is the product of fraud or undue influence.\n3. Parent and child, \u00a7 41*\u2014when conveyance by parent to child set aside. There must he proof of fraud and undue influence in fact to set aside a conveyance by a parent to a child.\n4. Cancellation of instruments, \u00a7 5*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show competency of ward to transact business. Evidence held to sustain the finding that complainant\u2019s ward was competent to transact business at the time she executed a certain bill of sale and a certain lease to the defendant, in a suit by a conservator to set aside such bill' of sale and lease on the ground of his ward\u2019s incompetency at the time of execution of such bill of sale and lease.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. James A. Creighton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by James E. Johnson, conservator of Mary A. Taff, complainant, against W. 0. Taff, defendant, to set aside a certain bill of sale and a certain lease executed by Mary A. Taff to the defendant. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, complainant appeals.\nStevens & Herndon, for appellant.\nDavis McKeown, 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": "0546-01",
  "first_page_order": 572,
  "last_page_order": 573
}