{ "id": 5102685, "name": "William F. White v. Clair E. More, Assignee of the Wah Mee Exposition Company, Insolvent", "name_abbreviation": "White v. More", "decision_date": "1894-04-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "606", "last_page": "610", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "54 Ill. App. 606" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "15 Brad. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bradf.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "120 Ill. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5384603 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/120/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2875802 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/115/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Ill. 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "103 Ill. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2803094 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/103/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 Ill. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5420813 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/132/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Brad. 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bradf.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293, 294" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2921329 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/123/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 Ill. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2884221 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/116/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ill. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2877519 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/115/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2963568 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/129/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5058131 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/43/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5441380 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/137/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. App. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 505, "char_count": 9115, "ocr_confidence": 0.495, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5785865732767385e-07, "percentile": 0.8169669351379173 }, "sha256": "71ffd330c5b1b6e8fe403a9e4c3dd2b58408efc85b8dc8ec2b8a013034b0a747", "simhash": "1:142bf40008161046", "word_count": 1572 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "William F. White v. Clair E. More, Assignee of the Wah Mee Exposition Company, Insolvent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee is the assignee for the benefit of creditors of the Wah Mee Exposition Company, administering its assets under the direction of the County Court.\nAugust 24,1892, by an agreement between White and the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition, the latter granted to White a \u201c concession \u201d of the exclusive use of a parcel of land within the grounds of the company,\u201c and the right to erect and maintain upon said tract upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, a Chinese village, and the exclusive right to erect and maintain a Chinese theater and a Chinese Joss house, and also the exclusive right to maintain a Chinese tea garden and cafe, and the right to sell in said cafe tea, coffee and non-intoxicating beverages, and food and dishes, subject to approval as hereinafter set forth, and the further right to sell upon said space, tea, Chinese curiosities and wares, subject to the approval of the Exposition.\u201d White agreed that be would pay to the Exposition twenty-five per cent of the gross receipts derived from all sources of revenue under this concession, settlements to be had and payments to be made each day for the previous day\u2019s business, and at such times as should be designated by the Exposition; the method of issuing tickets or of arriving at the gross receipts hereunder, to be approved by the Exposition.\nWhite made, September 9,T892, a contract with Chan Gee We, Chan Kwai and Wong Lat, by which they were to carry on the Chinese part of the business, which contract contained these provisions\u2014White being the \u201c first party \u201d and the Chinamen the \u201c second parties \u201d :\n\u201c Sec. 3. The parties hereto agree and promise with each other that the receipts from sales of all merchandise, curios, refreshments (including meals furnished employes), admission to theater and Joss house and all other sources whatever, shall pass to the cashier or other financial oificer, to be or which may be appointed by World\u2019s Columbian Exposition, or William F. White, or jointly (said financial agent or agents to be paid by the second parties); all change shall be made by them, and that a system of salesman\u2019s double checks shall be used to record all such receipts; such system shall be either approved or prescribed by the officers of the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition, or in such other manner as the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition may electas per the terms of Exhibit A.\u2019\nThat at the close of each day\u2019s business, or such other time as may be agreed upon by the parties hereto or designated by the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition, thirty-five (35) per cent of the gross receipts of each day\u2019s business shall be turned over to the first party hereto, and sixty-five (65) per cent to the second party, and that the first party shall pay or cause to be paid to the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition twenty-five (25) per cent, required and provided for by Exhibit A\u2019 out of the thirty-five (35) per cent, to which he is and shall be entitled under this contract.\nThe second parties hereby also agree to accept said sixty-five (65) per cent, of the gross receipts in full reimbursement and as compensation for all the acts, services, expenses, expenditures and out-goings of whatever kind or nature required of and to be, or which may be made, or done by them under and by virtue 'of the terms of said Exhibit, A,\u2019 or this contract.\u201d\nThe three Chinamen incorporated themselves in Utah as the Wah Mee Exposition Company, and appointed Hong Sling as manager of the business here. White appointed one Williams as cashier. He' received all the money, and put it in bank to the credit of White, and White paid out of it, twenty-five per cent to the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition, sixty-five per cent to Hong Sling, who receipted for it as \u201cWah Mee Ex. Co.\u2019s proportion of receipts for\u201d certain days or periods, and White retained ten per cent.\nBusiness went on without friction until the assignment by the Wah Mee Exposition Company to More, August 25, 1893.\nThe next day he took possession of the business, turned Williams and Ms assistant out, received all the money, and refused to divide with White. White filed a petition in the County Court, August 30, 1893, to be reinstated in the receipt of the money; the petition remained pending in the County Court until January 12, 1893, and was then dismissed, and White appealed.\nThe whole business of the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition was then over. The specific relief that White asked, could not then be granted. The funds however\u2014the proceeds of the business\u2014were in the hands of More, and if White had not a mere claim for, but an equitable title to, ten per cent of them, it might and ought to have been awarded to him by the County Court. It had the jurisdiction. Atlas Nat. Bk. v. More, 40 Ill. App. 338.\nMore stood in the shoes of the Wah Mee Exposition Company.\nWhatever claim White had in rem,, upon the business, or funds derived from the business, against the company, was good against More. As assignee he took the property of the company cum onere. Union Trust Co. v. Trumbull, 137 Ill. 146.\nNow, it is clear that as between White and the company and the Chinamen, the latter were the real parties dealing with White; that the company was mere form without substance.\nBy the arrangement of the business, assented to by all parties in interest, the cashier of White was entitled to the custody, in the first instance, of all money coming in, and from it White was to pay to the World\u2019s Columbian Exposition its share, and to the representative of the Chinamen their share. This was not a mere lien upon anything, but the legal title, in trust as to nine-tenths.\nIt is true that White had no claim or lien upon the stock in trade, but he had a leasehold, a legal estate, by the concession in the place where the business was conducted, and the Chinamen had but a license from him, irrevocable, it may have been, to construct, maintain, and conduct.\nWhen More went into possession he took premises the legal title of which was in White. The ten per cent to be retained by White was his rent.\nThe rent of premises occupied by an assignee while winding up, is part of the expenses of administration, to be paid before distributing anything among general creditors. Smith v. Goodman, 43 Ill. App. 530; same case in the Supreme Court, 36 N. E. R. 621.\nThe County Court should have ascertained the amount of the receipts by More after he took possession from the business as he conducted it, whether with more \u201c attractions\u201d or not, and awarded to White ten per cent thereof, before any distribution among general creditors. Upon either ground, that White was entitled to all the money'in the first instance, or as expenses of administration, he should be preferred.\nThe judgment of the County Court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to the County Court to ascertain the amount of receipts from the business, and award White ten per cent thereof, in preference to general creditors. The costs here are to \u25a0 be paid by the appellee in due course of administration.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, J. G. Egan, Attorney.", "Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William F. White v. Clair E. More, Assignee of the Wah Mee Exposition Company, Insolvent.\n1. Assignments fob the Benefit of Cbeditoes\u2014Assignee Takes Gum, One-re.\u2014Where an assignment for the benefit of creditors is made, the assignee takes the property cum mere.\n2. Same\u2014Expenses of Administration\u2014Rent of Premises.\u2014The rent of premises occupied by an assignee while winding up the affairs of the insolvent is a part of the expenses of administration, to be paid before distributing dividends to the general creditors.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assignment for the benefit of creditors. Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Scales, Judge,' presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1894.\nThe opinion states the case.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, J. G. Egan, Attorney.\nThe assignee had no greater right or interest in the revenue of the business than the assignor had, and he acquired the business subject to all liens, equities and existing rights and interests of other persons.\nAn assignee takes subject to all equities, and has no better title than the assignor has. Davis v. Chicago Dock Co., 129 Ill. 180.\nHe takes subject to all incumbrances, whether created by operation of law or by act of 'the insolvent. Jack v. Weiemett, 115 Ill. 105; Field v. Ridgely, 116 Ill. 424; Yates et al. v. Dodge, Executrix, 123 Ill. 50-56; Colburn et al. v. Shay et al., 17 Brad. 289, 293, 294; Burrill on Assignments, page 615, 5th edition.\nThe County Court has such equitable jurisdiction, and that it takes property assigned subject to all liens. Wilson v. Aaron, 132 Ill. 238; Freydenthall v. Baldwin, 103 Ill. 325; Farwell v. Crandall, 120 Ill. 10.\nThe County Court has jurisdiction to enforce every equitable assignment, lien and interest, as well as every legal assignment, lien and interest. Hanchett v. Waterbury, 115 Ill. 220; Preston v. Spaulding, 120 Ill. 208; Field v. Ridgely, 116 Ill. 424; Newlin v. Baily, 15 Brad. 199.\nWeigley, Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0606-01", "first_page_order": 604, "last_page_order": 608 }