{
  "id": 5403353,
  "name": "C. F. Irwin, Appellee, v. J. M. Manley et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Irwin v. Manley",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,408",
  "first_page": "232",
  "last_page": "233",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 232"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "276 Ill. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4852332
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/276/0353-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1863,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15902587370923943
    },
    "sha256": "4048583c9306de165ec2d7ca432ada89da85ba131e74ed829d7361dbff08c83c",
    "simhash": "1:e26c7fb0784cff84",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. F. Irwin, Appellee, v. J. M. Manley et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. M. Manley and R. H. Kramer, for appellants.",
      "Charles B. Hazlehurst and George D. Carbary, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. F. Irwin, Appellee, v. J. M. Manley et al., Appellants.\nGen. No. 6,408.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAppeal and error, \u00a7 1748 \u2014when judgment affirmed for lack of evidence. In a suit in equity by which complainant sought to obtain a decree that certain premises were not subject to the lien of a judgment obtained by the defendants, where, under a prior Supreme Court decision, the only question left for the Appellate Court to pass upon was whether the defendants had an interest in the premises by virtue of an alleged agreement between themselves and the complainant, held that this was an affirmative defense upon which the defendants had the burden of proof, and as no proof of any such agreement was offered and there was none in the record, the decree must be affirmed.\nAppeal from the City Court of Elgin; the Hon. Frank E. Shopen, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by C. F. Irwin, complainant, against J. M. Manley, B. H. Kramer and others, defendants, to \"obtain a decree that a certain city lot was not subject to the lien of a judgment obtained by Manley and Kramer for attorneys\u2019 fees against one James Sullivan, from the wife of whom, upon a decree of divorce awarding her such lot as her property, complainant purchased such lot under contract, and cross-bill by defendants seeking affirmative relief.\nFrom a decree for complainant defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in Irwin v. Manley, 276 Ill. 353, transferred the case to the Appellate Court.\nJ. M. Manley and R. H. Kramer, for appellants.\nCharles B. Hazlehurst and George D. Carbary, for appellee.\nSee niinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0232-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 261
}