{
  "id": 3186764,
  "name": "Charles H. Albers, Receiver, Appellee, v. Andrew H. Dressel et al. Andrew H. Dressel and Julia Schanze, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Albers v. Dressel",
  "decision_date": "1940-12-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 41,304",
  "first_page": "470",
  "last_page": "473",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "307 Ill. App. 470"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "303 Ill. App. 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3342734
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/303/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 Ill. App. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3342972
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/303/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 Ill. App. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3343576
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/303/0172-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Ill. App. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5592486
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/299/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Ill. App. 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5593518
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/299/0585-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 Ill. App. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5617426
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/286/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 Ill. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2596563
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/361/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 Ill. 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3141680
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/157/0379-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 4180,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.685371297493976e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49261134529464845
    },
    "sha256": "2b9bd81ae1a65ec477f8a8e53b30bde512f602725a75a20943b49f6bdcd188d4",
    "simhash": "1:0e5b049c6d529294",
    "word_count": 739
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:50.861456+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles H. Albers, Receiver, Appellee, v. Andrew H. Dressel et al. Andrew H. Dressel and Julia Schanze, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nBy this appeal certain defendants seek to reverse two decrees entered in foreclosure suits which have been consolidated for hearing upon one set of abstracts and briefs.\nOne of the suits was to foreclose a trust deed given by Andrew H. Dressel on one-half of his farm to secure an indebtedness of $45,000, and the other to secure an indebtedness of $35,000 on the other'half of the farm.\nCounsel for defendants in this court say, \u201cThere is no question made by this record in this cause upon the evidence. The matter was tried before Master in Chancery, a report by such Master culminating in a decree of sale.\n\u201cThe question here involved is one of pleading. . . . There is no allegation of possession or ownership or right, title or interest in and to the note and indebtedness in question alleged to be set forth in either of the complaints. \u2019 \u2019\nIn support of defendants\u2019 contention counsel say, \u201cThe one question involved in this proceeding is the failure of the pleadings to show any ownership or title to the chose in action. A careful scrutiny of the pleadings, to wit: the original bill of complaint in the Superior Court case and the amended bill of complaint in the Circuit Court case fail utterly to show any right, title or claim in the plaintiff against the defendant or any title or ownership of the note in question to be in the plaintiff.\u201d The argument seems to be that because of the failure to allege ownership of the notes and trust deed the decree cannot stand although the evidence may show the ownership of the notes.\nThis is all the argument in the brief and no reference\nis made to any particular allegations of the bills, but we are left to search the record to see whether counsel\u2019s argument is supported after we examine the complaints. It is not the duty of the court to search through the record to see if it can find errors in the allegation. This is the work of counsel and the decrees appealed from might be affirmed without saying more. However, we have looked into the allegations of the complaints and find that each was brought by the receiver of a bank which was being liquidated, and in each copies of the notes and trust deed were attached to and made a part of the complaint and the receiver alleged they would be produced in open court. In one complaint it was alleged the receiver was the owner and. holder of the principal note on which there was a balance of $40,000 due and unpaid, and in the other complaint it was alleged there was now due the complainant $35,000 on the other mortgage indebtedness. There is no merit in the contention. The production of the notes by plaintiff in the two suits was prima facie evidence of ownership in plaintiff. Henderson v. Davisson, 157 Ill. 379; Dillon v. Elmore, 361 Ill. 356; Kazunas v. Wright, 286 Ill. App. 554. No objection having been raised in the trial court to the sufficiency of the pleadings, it cannot be urged for the first time in a court of review. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc. v. Forgue, 299 Ill. App. 585; Replogle v. Scott, 299 Ill. App. 270.\nIn the Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc., case we said: \u201cThe sufficiency of the statement of claim may not be raised for the first time in the Appellate Court. Sec. 42 of the Civil Practice Act, ch. 110, par. 166, Ill. Rev. Stats. 1937, provides: \u2018 (3) All defects in pleadings, either in form or substance, not objected to in the trial court, shall be deemed to be waived.\u2019 \u201d To the same effect is Addante v. Pompilio, 303 Ill. App. 172; Toman v. Park Castles Apt. Bldg. Corp., 303 Ill. App. 205; Grau v. Travelers Ins. Co., 303 Ill. App. 212.\nThe ground alleged for reversal is frivolous and wholly without merit and it is clearly apparent the appeals were prosecuted merely for delay\nThe decrees appealed from are affirmed.\nDecrees affirmed.\nHatchett and HcSurely, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Julian C. Ryer and Clarice B. Richie, both of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "John E. Johnson and John R. Wall, both of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles H. Albers, Receiver, Appellee, v. Andrew H. Dressel et al. Andrew H. Dressel and Julia Schanze, Appellants.\nGen. No. 41,304.\nOpinion filed December 23, 1940.\nJulian C. Ryer and Clarice B. Richie, both of Chicago, for appellants.\nJohn E. Johnson and John R. Wall, both of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0470-01",
  "first_page_order": 500,
  "last_page_order": 503
}
