{ "id": 5112381, "name": "Bishop v. American Preservers Co.", "name_abbreviation": "Bishop v. American Preservers Co.", "decision_date": "1894-01-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "417", "last_page": "420", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "51 Ill. App. 417" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "39 Ohio St. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St.", "case_ids": [ 914170 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st/39/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Miss. 711", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 297281 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/42/0711-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2864953 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/113/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2605479 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/50/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 N. W. Rep. 864", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "50 Ala. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "49 Tex. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2153468 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tex/49/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Wis. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "46 Ala. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3146525 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/46/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Fed. Rep. 584", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3753013 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/5/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Wall. 70", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 8299887 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/69/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Fed. Rep. 423", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3715716 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/3/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 McCrary, 558", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "99 Am. Dec. 61", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "3 Fed. Rep. 430", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3716110 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/3/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Wheat. 258", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wheat.", "case_ids": [ 1428677 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/24/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Wall. 483", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 411244 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/83/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ill. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2753356 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/91/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "case_ids": [ 2483810 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/2/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 Ill. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 12121509 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/130/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Gray, 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gray", "case_ids": [ 2075605 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/70/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Mass. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 715843 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/106/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Gil. 35", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilmer", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Hun, 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun,", "case_ids": [ 4309989 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nys/22/0407-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 473, "char_count": 6377, "ocr_confidence": 0.48, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.283159945918396e-08, "percentile": 0.47908005447421836 }, "sha256": "2d78492077bbe6a090dd583a016c2ae35a6bb651b25a6dc20eb0aae4f7c9b4da", "simhash": "1:234569af7d2fa089", "word_count": 1112 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Bishop v. American Preservers Co." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Me. Justice Gaey\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn July, 1888, the appellant, who was engaged in the manufacture of fruit butters, jellies, preserves and like products, by a bill of sale under seal, conveyed all his stock in trade, fixtures, etc., business and good will of the same, to the appellee, and thereafter for nearly three years continued to carry on the business as before, but on a salary from, and as agent for, the appellee.\nIn March, 1891, he threw off his allegiance and rebelled, and the appellee replevied what was then on hand.\nMany questions are made in the case, but the one of paramount importance is that the appellant claims, and on the trial endeavored to prove, that the appellee was and is one of several corporations under the control of one body of individuals, organized and managed effectively to create and perpetuate a monopoly in the trade, and prevent competition in prices, of the goods in which they dealt.\nThe appellee is a separate, independent legal entity. If it is abusing the privilege it enjoys of doing business in this State, though a foreign corporation, some remedy probably can be found to prevent future, if not punish past abuse; but it is not an outlaw, having no right to sue for the propertyit owns.. Morawetz, Corp., Sec. 758; U. S. Vinegar Co. v. Schlegel, 67 Hun, 356; S. C., 22 N. Y., Supplement, 407.\nIts organization can not be attacked collaterally 'for supposed sinfulness in its conduct.\nThat the purchase in 1888 was in pursuance of the plan of monopoly did not prevent title passing under the bill of sale. G-reenhood on Public Policy, 48.\nMor can it be avoided for any supposed insufficiency or failure of consideration. Bishop on Contracts, Sec. 124.\nQuestions presented by the appellants as to admission or rejection of evidence become unimportant, holding as we do that the matter to be proved was immaterial.\nWhether the affidavit upon which the writ was issued covered all the goods taken, or was in any particular defective, was of no consequence after the parties had gone to issues upon the declaration, which did cover all. Frink v. Flanagan, 1 Gil. 35.\nThe replevin was of goods in the possession of the appellant as agent of the appellee; to what extent, if any, they were the same as conveyed by the bill of sale does not appear.\nThe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Me. Justice Gaey" } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, Lynden Evans and Frederick Arnd, Attorneys.", "Appellee\u2019s Brief, Moran, Kraus & Mayer and A. Leo Weil, Attorneys." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bishop v. American Preservers Co.\n1. Foreign Corporations\u2014Trusts\u2014Right to Sue for its Property. \u2014A foreign corporation, although abusing the privilege which it enjoys of doing business in this State, is not to be considered as an outlaw, having no right to sue for the property it owns.\n2. Foreign Corporations\u2014Collateral Attach.\u2014The organization of a foreign corporation can not be attacked collaterally for the supposed violation of the law in regard to trusts.\n3. Trusts.\u2014Purchase of Property.\u2014The purchase of property by a foreign corporation in pursuance of a plan of monopoly does not prevent the title passing under a bill of sale, nor can it be avoided for any supposed failure of consideration.\n4. Replevin\u2014Affidavit.\u2014Whether an affidavit upon which a writ of replevin is issued covers all the goods taken or is in any particular defective is of no consequence after the parties have pleaded to the declaration which covers all the goods in question.\nMemorandum.\u2014Replevin. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Samuel P. McConnell, Judge, presiding. Declarations for goods wrongfully taken and wrongfully detained, with a count in trover;\" pleas, general issue, non detinet, property in defendant, and that the plaintiff is a trust in restraint of trade and can not bring suit to carry out the purposes of such trust; verdict for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed January 11, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, Lynden Evans and Frederick Arnd, Attorneys.\nIf the appellee urges the doctrine of par delictum, still it \u2022cannot recover, because it was not, at the time the suit was instituted, in possession of the property (the subject-matter of the illegal contract) sought to be herein replevied. Wells on Replevin, 77; Hall v. White, 106 Mass. 399; Richardson v. Reed, 4 Gray, 441; Story on Agency, 195-344; Samuels v. Oliver, 130 Ill. 73.\nThe affidavit in replevin being jurisdictional, the defendant could not waive it. Leigh v. Mason, 1 Scam. 249; Fleishman v. Walker, 91 Ill. 518.\nAppellee\u2019s Brief, Moran, Kraus & Mayer and A. Leo Weil, Attorneys.\nThe appellant, having in his possession goods of appellee as its agent or bailee, part of which goods appellee delivered to said agent from other factories, part of which appellee acquired by bill of sale from appellant, and which appellee, after said purchase, delivered to appellant, as its agent, part of which were the accretions naturally arising from the conduct of an active manufacturing enterprise, and all of said goods in appellant\u2019s possession as bailee he sought to retain, and this action is for a breach of his promise as such bailee to return or-account to his principal, the appellee, for said goods, or any part thereof. Planters Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258; Holt v. Barton, 42 Miss. R. 711; W. U. Tel. Co. v. St. J. & W. R. R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 430; Logan v. Grosscup, 99 Am. Dec. 61, note; W. U. Tel. Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co., 1 McCrary, 558; S. C., 3 Fed. Rep. 423; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70; Wann v. Kelly, 5 Fed. Rep. 584; Black v. McNiel, 46 Ala. 288; Anderson v. Moncrief, 3 Dess. Eq. 124; Hickman v. Schwartz, 50 Wis. 270; De Leon v. Trevino, 49 Tex. 88; Morawetz on Corp., Sec. 758; Importing & Ex. Co. v. Locke, 50 Ala. 334; Greenhood on Public Policy, Rule 27; Rational Distilling Co. v. Cream City Importing Co,, 56 N. W. Rep. 864.\nAn agent or bailee who has received property of his principal can not defend against an action by the principal to recover the property, on the ground that such property was acquired through an illegal transaction, nor can such agent or bailee claim adversely to his principal or set up a title adverse to bis principal. Mechem on Agency, Secs. 525, 526; Simpson v. Wren, 50 Ill. 222; Snell v. Pells, 113 Ill. 145; Holt v. Barton, 42 Miss. 711; Norton v. Blinn, 39 Ohio St. 145; Greenhood on Public Policy, Rules 32, 34, 108, 109 and 110." }, "file_name": "0417-01", "first_page_order": 413, "last_page_order": 416 }