{
  "id": 859839,
  "name": "Susan A. Bayor et al. v. W. D. Ewart; William A. Bayor et al. v. Edward F. Gorton; William A. Bayor et al. v. T. Smyth Fauntleroy et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bayor v. Ewart",
  "decision_date": "1890-11-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "318",
  "last_page": "319",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 318"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. 467",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2681036
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/80/0467-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 Ill. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2893641
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/117/0137-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1279,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.03034308177812683
    },
    "sha256": "4fee5066e73eb8ea6e99d4eeb4e2de6167689c8c77057bb6e366953968f64cf2",
    "simhash": "1:ddeae807325cd10d",
    "word_count": 221
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:53:41.478670+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Susan A. Bayor et al. v. W. D. Ewart. William A. Bayor et al. v. Edward F. Gorton. William A. Bayor et al. v. T. Smyth Fauntleroy et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Waterman, J.\nIn this cause motion, is made to dismiss the appeal, it being from an order appointing a receiver, and not a final order in the cause. It is not claimed that this appeal was taken in accordance with the provisions of the act permitting appeals from orders appointing, receivers, and therefore the only question presented to this court is, is the order appealed from final.\nIt is manifest from an examination of the record that this is not a final order. Everything therein directed, as well as everything therein, as counsel urge, \u201c found,\u201d may be set aside at any time. \u00a1Neither the court nor parties are concluded by any conclusion the court may, as therein expressed, have come to, or order it may have so made. Farson v. Gorham, 117 Ill. 137; Coates v. Cunningham, 80 Ill. 467.\nAppeal dismiisid.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Waterman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Alfred D. Eddy, for appellants.",
      "Messrs. Edward W. Russell and William M. McEwen, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Susan A. Bayor et al. v. W. D. Ewart. William A. Bayor et al. v. Edward F. Gorton. William A. Bayor et al. v. T. Smyth Fauntleroy et al.\nPraetice\u2014Appeal\u2014Interlocutory Order.\nNo appeal lies from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver.\n[Opinion filed November 11, 1890.]\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Henry M. Shepard, Judge presiding.\nMr. Alfred D. Eddy, for appellants.\nMessrs. Edward W. Russell and William M. McEwen, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0318-01",
  "first_page_order": 316,
  "last_page_order": 317
}