{
  "id": 5816845,
  "name": "L. O. Eagleton, Administrator, Appellant, v. Katherine Barnett, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eagleton v. Barnett",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,510",
  "first_page": "452",
  "last_page": "453",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 452"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 4130,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37786025362868647
    },
    "sha256": "5ea81317456eca361a4036a3d875e106a27bad9dc4f19c7f70b7e74baebe304e",
    "simhash": "1:5275fbf0a85900f9",
    "word_count": 691
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. O. Eagleton, Administrator, Appellant, v. Katherine Barnett, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Witnesses, \u00a7 141*\u2014when person claiming gift from person since deceased is competent to testify. One claiming a gift from a person since deceased is competent to testify, in citation proceedings, for the discovery of assets of the estate, as to matters occurring after the death of deceased.\n3. Witnesses, \u00a7 253*\u2014who can best determine credibility of. The credibility of witnesses can best be determined by those seeing and hearing them testify.\n4. Witnesses, \u00a7 132*\u2014discretion of court as to permitting party cited to testify. It lies entirely within the discretion of the court, in citation proceedings under section 81 of the Administration \u2022 Act (J. & A. If 130), to permit a party cited thereunder to testify at her own request.\n5. Appeal and error, \u00a7 463*\u2014when objection as to incompetency of witness to testify is too late. Where a stipulation is entered into between the parties to citation proceedings for discovery of assets of an estate that the transcript of evidence used in the Probate Court may be used in\" the Circuit Court, and that either party may object to the evidence, but no objection is made to the competency of a witness to testify nor to her testimony until after the entire testimony is in and a decision on the merits indicated by the Circuit Court judge, neither party can complain on appeal.\n6. Gifts, \u00a7 29*\u2014when mental competency of donor shown. Evidence held sufficient to show that deceased was mentally competent at the time she made a gift of certain securities to defendant, \u00b0 who had taken care of her.\n7. Evidence, \u00a7 134*-\u2014when proper foundation for copy of receipt is shown. Evidence held sufficient to show that a receipt was lost without fault of defendant so as to furnish sufficient ground for introduction of a copy.\n8. Witnesses, \u00a7 96 \u2014right of party to testify against interest. An interested party may testify against his pecuniary interest in citation proceedings by an administrator for the discovery of assets.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. King, Claude U. Stone and Roscos Her-get, for appellant.",
      "Weil & Bartley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. O. Eagleton, Administrator, Appellant, v. Katherine Barnett, Appellee.\nGen. No. 6,510.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Gifts, \u00a7 29 \u2014when gift inter vivos shown. In citation proceedings by an administrator under section 81 of the Administration Act (J. & A. V 130), to discover assets of the estate alleged to be in the hands of defendant, where it appeared that d\u00e9ceased soon after her husband\u2019s death determined to give defendant, who was not a relative hut who had taken care of her after her husband\u2019s death, a considerable portion of her property other than by will; that afterwards she had part of her property converted into securities that would pass by mere delivery so that she could accomplish her purpose; that she understood that there must be a delivery of the securities in her lifetime; that she declared a few months before her death that she had given them to defendant; and that they were in defendant\u2019s possession after the death of the deceased, evidence held sufficient to show delivery of such securities to defendant and possession by her thereof with sole - control in the lifetime of deceased.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Theodore N. Greek, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 9, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nCitation proceedings by L. 0. Eagleton, administrator- with the will annexed of the estate of-Louise De Long, deceased, plaintiff, against Katherine Barnett, defendant, for the discovery of assets under section 81 of the Administration Act (J. & A. ft 130). From a judgment of the Circuit Court awarding the property to defendant and requiring the retention by defendant of $500 for burial expenses, to be accounted for to the court, plaintiff appeals.\nJohn B. King, Claude U. Stone and Roscos Her-get, for appellant.\nWeil & Bartley, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic o-nd section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section numbey."
  },
  "file_name": "0452-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 479
}
