{ "id": 5121818, "name": "National Safe and Lock Co. v. The People of the State of Illinois", "name_abbreviation": "National Safe & Lock Co. v. People", "decision_date": "1893-08-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "336", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ill. App. 336" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "25 Ill. 35", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 443603 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/25/0035-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2964554 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "235" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/129/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 Ill. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2884221 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/116/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ill. App. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5033200 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/41/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 Ill. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5805288 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/140/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 Ill. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5411290 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/127/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ill. App. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4948915 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/27/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2900418 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/119/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5241019 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/57/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ill. App. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4953462 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/27/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 Ill. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2870727 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/114/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2963568 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/129/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2875802 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/115/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5441380 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/137/0146-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 407, "char_count": 6950, "ocr_confidence": 0.48, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.974745973116266e-08, "percentile": 0.5378985415752038 }, "sha256": "420cccf24633fc6b05d488ea76897ff4f948a6e5e2b89a4fc8e57cdb7a24319b", "simhash": "1:e1c01882c056fadf", "word_count": 1236 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "National Safe and Lock Co. v. The People of the State of Illinois." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion of the Court,\nGary, P. J.\nDecember 10,1892, the firm of Katlinsky & Gatzert made a voluntary assignment for the benefit of their creditors to the American Trust and Savings Bank, and their assets were being administered under the direction of the County Court.\nThe appellant filed a petition claiming a lien upon a safe, and asking relief. The assignee answered the petition, and the County Court denied all relief.\nThe appellant prayed an appeal, which was granted; bond to be filed in twenty days. A bond in which the people of the State of Illinois are obligees, for the use of the creditors of the firm, was filed, and approved by the judge of the County Court.\nNo briefs have been filed for the appellee, but the assignee, by attorneys, has filed a stipulation among the papers of this caus\u00e9, as follows:\n\u201c In the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.\nNational Safe & Lock Company v. American Trust & Savings Bank, Assignee of Katlinsky & Gatzert, Insolvents. 4765-122.\nIt is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the appellee may have ten (10) days further time from April 6, 1893, in which to file briefs.\nChicago, April 6, 1893.\nCratty Bros. & Jarvis, Attorneys for Appellants.\n\u2022 Moran, Kraus & Mayer, Attorneys for Appellee.\u201d\nAs the relief prayed was such as, if granted, must be by an order to be obeyed by the assignee, and' as the assignee was the party contesting, the bond should have been to it as obligee. The appeal is not under the 26th section of the act concerning insolvent debtors of April 10,1872, but under the 8th section of the act to establish Appellate Courts of June 2, 1877, as amended June 6, 1887. Union Trust Co. v. Trumbull, 137 Ill. 146.\nWe treat the stipulation as a waiver of the irregularity of the bond; had it been objected to, it would have been amendable under section 70 of the Practice Act.\nThe case is that the appellant, by a written contract, sold a safe to the insolvents. That contract provided \u201c that the title of said safe shall not pass until the safe is paid for, in full.\u201d That until so paid for, it should remain the property of the appellant, who, in default of payment, might take possession and remove the safe without legal process.\nAfter the safe went into the possession of the assignee, the appellant could not, without the order of the County Court, take it from the assignee, with or without process. Hanchett v. Waterbury, 115 Ill. 220.\nBut in the hands of the assignee the safe was subject to whatever claim was valid against the insolvents. Davis v. Chicago Dock Co., 129 Ill. 180.\nThe last $100 of the price of the safe was long overdue, and in the evening of December 8, 1892, the insolvents gave a check for that sum, dated the next day, but which had not been presented for payment wdien the assignment was made. The insolvents had money enough in the bank to pay the check, but the assignee got both safe and money, if the record is true.\nThe appellant asked that the assignee sell the safe and pay it out of the proceeds, and for other and further relief. A check is, from its delivery to the payee, an assignment of so much of the money in bank; Bank of America v. Indiana Banking Co., 114 Ill. 483; though as between competing checks, with not enough money to pay all, the banker pays the one first presented. Myers v. Union Nat. Bk., 27 Ill. App. 254.\nChecks are an exception to the old rule that partial assignments of a fund were invalid. Chi. & N. W. Ry. v. Nichols, 57 Ill. 464. And the old rule no longer applies, if it ever did apply, in equity. Phillips v. South Park Com\u2019rs, 119 Ill. 626; South Park Com\u2019rs v. Phillips, 27 Ill. App. 380; Bispham Eq., Sec. 166; Phillips v. Edsall, 127 Ill. 535.\nThe assignee having, as the record says, the money which, as between the appellant and the insolvents, belonged to the appellant, should pay it over to the appellant. Halle v. Nat. Park Bk., 140 Ill. 413; same case, title reversed, 41 Ill. App. 19. If the money were gone, the court should have directed the sale of the safe, and payment from the proceeds.\nThe order of the County Court is reversed and the cause remanded.\nWe give no directions further than that the costs of this appeal must be paid by the assignee in the course of administration of the assets of the insolvents.\nHo judgment for costs can go against the people, and we suspect we are holding a moot court only as to the controversy, Reversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Gary, P. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, Cbatty Bros. & Jarvis, Attorneys.", "Moran, Kraus & Mayer, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "National Safe and Lock Co. v. The People of the State of Illinois.\n1. Practice^on Appeals\u2014Defective Bond\u2014Waiver.\u2014Where the appellant filed a defective appeal bond, a stipulation was signed and filed by the parties giving appellee ten days further time in which to file his briefs. It was held that the stipulation was a waiver of the irregularity of the bond.\n2. Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors\u2014Possession of Assignee.\u2014After the property of the person making an assignment for the benefit of creditors goes into the possession of the assignee it can not be taken from his possession, with or without process, without the order of the County Court, but in the hands of the assignee, such property is subject to the same liens as when in the hands of the insolvents.\n3. Checks\u2014Delivery to Payee\u2014Assignment.\u2014A check, from its delivery by the drawer to the payee, is an assignment of so much of the drawer\u2019s money in the bank as is named in the check.\n4. Checks\u2014Competing Cheeks\u2014Priority of Payment.\u2014As between competing checks, where the drawer has not money enough in the bank to pay all, the banker pays the one first presented.\n5. Checks\u2014Partial Assignments.\u2014Checks are an exception to the old rule that partial assignments of a fund are invalid. And the old rule no longer applies in equity.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assignment proceedings. Benefit of creditors. Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Scales, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1893.\nOpinion filed August 5, 1893.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, Cbatty Bros. & Jarvis, Attorneys.\nThe County Court, in the administration of insolvent estates, exercises equitable jurisdiction. Field v. Ridgely, 116 Ill. 424, 432; Ide v. Sayer, 129 Ill. 230, 235; Atlas Nat. Bk. v. More, 40 Ill. App. 338.\nAs between the parties, appellant, under the contract, has a lien upon the property for deferred payments. 1 Jones on Liens, Sec. 41. The assignee takes no greater rights than the assignor, and the seller\u2019s rights are superior to the assignee\u2019s. 1 Jones on Liens, Sec. 41; Taber, Asset Law, p. 29; Davis v. Dock Co., 129 Ill. 187; Union Trust Co. v. Trumbull, 137 Ill. 179.\nWhere a depositor draws a check against funds to an amount sufficient to pay it, it operates as an equitable assignment to the payee of funds to the amount for which it is drawn. 1 Kenney\u2019s Ill. Digest, 442; Munn v. Burch, 25 Ill. 35.\nMoran, Kraus & Mayer, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0336-01", "first_page_order": 332, "last_page_order": 335 }