{
  "id": 2919726,
  "name": "Henry Kreher, Executor, Appellee, v. John B. Beckett et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kreher v. Beckett",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "18",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 17"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3259,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "sha256": "140527cac87d9f1378e5d924905ea1712e7ab266e787f7355c2a6a4af00132a9",
    "simhash": "1:39fb87f4dca4dc98",
    "word_count": 546
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Kreher, Executor, Appellee, v. John B. Beckett et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Eldredge\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Injunction, \u00a7 15 \u2014when hill to enjoin action at law does not lie. A bill to enjoin the prosecution of an action at law will not lie when the complainant has a complete and adequate remedy at law, that is, where he can plead and maintain his defense in the action at law.\n3. Injunction, \u00a7 15*\u2014when equity will entertain jurisdiction to enjoin action at law. A court of equity will entertain jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the prosecution of an action at law, especially when its jurisdiction is not questioned, when the remedy at law is doubtful or incomplete, by reason of its involving complicated accounts or incidental matters bearing upon the ultimat\u00e9 rights of the parties, and when all of the questions involved can be determined and .the rights of all parties most advantageously or expeditiously adjusted in equity.\n4. - Equity, \u00a7 62*\u2014when loill disregard form of transaction. A court of equity will look to the substance rather than the form of a transaction in reaching a determination of material questions involved, and, as far as necessary to that end, will disregard matters of mere form.\n5. Bills and notes, \u00a7 19*\u2014when evidence shows execution of notes for purpose of accommodation. On a bill to enjoin the prosecution of an action at law by trustees to recover on notes held by them under an assignment, evidence held to show that such notes were executed for the accommodation of the assignor.\n6. Injunction, \u00a7 22*\u2014when prosecution of action at law hy assignees of notes mil he enjoined. The prosecution of an action at law by the assignees of promissory notes to recover on such notes will be enjoined where the evidence shows that they were executed for the accommodation of the assignor.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Eldredge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mills Brothers and Herrick & Herrick, for appellants.",
      "Whitley & Fitzgerald, Redmon, Hogan & Redmon and Vail, Miller & Pogue, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Kreher, Executor, Appellee, v. John B. Beckett et al., Appellants.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 230 \u2014lohat are rights of trustee under deed of assignment. One .taking a promissory note as trustee under a deed of assignment holds it subject to the same defenses which might have been urged against his assignor.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William K. Whitfield, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed with directions.\nOpinion filed October 11, 1917.\nStatement of the Case..\nBill by Henry Kreher, executor of the last will and testament of Richard Kreher, deceased, complainant, against John B. Beckett, George D. Miller, J. A. Brown and others, defendants, to enjoin an action by defendants to recover on certain promissory notes. Defendants filed a cross-bill, and, upon a hearing, both the original bill and the cross-bill were dismissed for want of equity. From the decree dismissing the cross-bill, defendants appeal and complainant assigns cross error to that part of the decree dismissing the original bill for want of equity.\nMills Brothers and Herrick & Herrick, for appellants.\nWhitley & Fitzgerald, Redmon, Hogan & Redmon and Vail, Miller & Pogue, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cnmniative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 41,
  "last_page_order": 42
}