{
  "id": 5080681,
  "name": "Agnes Grunenberg v. Robert B. Smith",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grunenberg v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1895-04-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "281",
  "last_page": "283",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 281"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        817799
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/56/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        426076
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/40/0179-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5286218
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/24/0620-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 4490,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0531521401225892e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5545331021229423
    },
    "sha256": "38879bbf5d8920c782f5b962a2a0c582846b47205b7be999e973118c0bf2a760",
    "simhash": "1:d635d630f65c1a01",
    "word_count": 761
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Agnes Grunenberg v. Robert B. Smith."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nHo replication having been filed, the cause having been set down for hearing on bill and answer, so far as the rights of the plaintiff in error are concerned, her answer must be taken as true.\nThe admissions made by Catherine Caplain in the answer by her filed, although made in the name of the alleged firm, can not conclude her co-defendant.\nPartners being agents for each other, the admissions of one in matters relating to the affairs of the partnership are receivable as evidence against the other partners. Such admissions are, however, only evidence; they do not preclude a denial of their truth. Even if the admission of Miss, \u2022 Caplain made in her answer would be under other circumstances treated as evidence against her co-defendant, in the hearing had by agreement on bill and answer, such admissions were not to be considered in passing upon the rights of the plaintiff in error. As to her, only the statements in the bill and her answer were before the chancellor.\nThe fact that Miss Caplain filed her answer in the name of the firm added nothing to it. It was Miss Caplain\u2019s answer and nothing more. Collier on Partnership, Secs. 707, 720, 775; Reese v. Darby, 4 Scammon 159; Gregg v. Renfrew, 24 Ill. 620; Winkler v. Winkler, 40 Ill. 179; Bressler v. McCune, 56 Ill. 475.\nThe suit was a proceeding against the individuals ivho were alleged to have been partners. Plaintiff in error, therefore, properly prosecutes the suit in error in her name only.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court as to Agnes Grunenberg is reversed and the bill here dismissed as to the plaintiff in error, Agnes Grunenberg.\nReversed and bill dismissed as to plaintiff in error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. Salomon, attorney for plaintiff in error.",
      "Thompson, Hawes & McCaslin, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Agnes Grunenberg v. Robert B. Smith.\n1. Chancery Practice\u2014No Replication\u2014Answer Taken as True.\u2014 In the absence of a replication the answer must be taken as true.\n2. Same\u2014Admissions of One Defendant Do Not Bind a Co-defendant.\u2014Admissions made by one defendant in her answer, although made in the name of an alleged firm, do not conclude a co-defendant, even when such defendants are partners.\n3. Admissions\u2014By Partners.\u2014Partners being agents for each other, the admissions of one in relating to the affairs of the partnership are receivable as evidence against the other partners. Such admissions are, however, only evidence; they do not preclude a denial of the truth.\nBill to Foreclose a Chattel Mortgage.\u2014Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1895.\nReversed and bill dismissed.\nOpinion filed April 4, 1895.\nStatement of the Case.\nThe original bill in this case was filed to enjoin the police \u00b0 of the city of Chicago and the defendant, Grunenberg, and her solicitor, from interfering with the defendant in error in the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. A preliminary injunction was granted.\nThe defendant in error thereafter amended his bill, asking the foreclosure of' the chattel mortgage by the court and an order for the sheriff to take possession of the property.\nGrunenberg, and one Catherine Caplain were alleged to have been at the time of the execution of the mortgage, doing a partnership business at No. 451 West Madison street, consisting of the retail sale of umbrellas, lamp shades, and various articles of merchandise. The defendant in error, it is alleged, loaned to them jointly, various sums of money, aggregating more than $1,500, for which notes were given by Catherine Caplain in the name of the firm, and the mortgage referred to was made in the same way.\nCatherine Caplain filed in the name of the alleged firm of Grunenberg & Caplain, an answer verified by her, in which is admitted all the allegations of the bill. Agnes Grunenberg filed her answer denying nearly all the material allegations of the bill and asserting that quite a portion of the articles covered by the chattel mortgage were the personal and separate effects of her, the said plaintiff in error.\nThe answer contains also allegations which, if true, preclude the possibility of relief' being, as against plaintiff in error, granted to the complainant. This answer was verified by plaintiff in error.\nThe cause having been set down for hearing on bill and answer, the court found for the complainant and gave to him a decree in accordance with the prayer of his bill.\nM. Salomon, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nThompson, Hawes & McCaslin, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0281-01",
  "first_page_order": 277,
  "last_page_order": 279
}