{ "id": 5153459, "name": "Henry Friedman et al. v. Edward Schoengen et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Friedman v. Schoengen", "decision_date": "1895-06-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "376", "last_page": "378", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "59 Ill. App. 376" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "7 Cush. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "case_ids": [ 1967552 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/61/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Mass. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2142892 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/102/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 859980 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/37/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill. App. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4986597 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/33/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5103153 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/54/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5114024 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0295-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 222, "char_count": 3117, "ocr_confidence": 0.525, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.940296151971941e-07, "percentile": 0.7354291698087417 }, "sha256": "a23f98a240f580e05a4059e1a966e061f18bfa948efb7aa149beaa83d3fee9b6", "simhash": "1:1244b2ca06319c38", "word_count": 536 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:36.719815+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Henry Friedman et al. v. Edward Schoengen et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a petition by appellees, sub-contractors, to be allowed a mechanic\u2019s lien.\nThe petition was answered by appellants, denying many of the material allegations of the petition and setting up new matter as a defense thereto.\nAccording to the abstract the cause was referred to a master \u201cto take proofs and report conclusions.\u201d This would probably be construed to mean to report his conclusions as to the law and evidence\u2014a useful and proper order.\nUpon such an order the master does not report the \u201c proofs \u201d presented to him; and exceptions to his report must be based upon facts stated in it. Brown v. McKay, 51 Ill. App. 295; Hodson v. Eugene Glass Co., 54 Ill. App. 248.\nTurning to the record we find that the order of the court was to take proofs of all the material allegations in the \u201c bill,\u201d and report the same, with his opinions on the law and the .evidence.\nThe master seems to have taken proofs not only of the \u201cmaterial allegations of the bill,\u201d but also as to the new matter set up, affirmatively, in the answer, and to have reported all of such proofs, with his conclusions thereon.\nTo this report, objections filed before and overruled by the master were refilled in court as-exceptions. All of these exceptions are based upon the proofs, not upon the master\u2019s conclusions as to the facts. They might properly have been overruled, because there was not, as to either, any specific pointing out, by definite reference or citation, the particular evidence relied upon to maintain the exception; on the contrary, the chancellor was asked to search through the entire mass of proofs and find evidence which would sustain the exception.\nSuch a course renders the report of the master of no assistance to the court, and is one which it is under no obligation to tolerate. Huling v. Farwell, 33 Ill. App. 238; Heffron v. Gore, 37 Ill. App. 257; Brown v. McKay, 51 Ill. App. 295; Hodson et al. v. Eugene Glass Co., 54 Ill. App. 248; Daniell\u2019S Ch. Pr. 1300-1315-1317.\nEvery presumption which exists in favor of a verdict of a jury is in support of a master\u2019s report.upon the facts. Dean v. Emerson, 102 Mass. 480; Adams v. Brown, 7 Cush. 220. The exceptions to the master\u2019s report were properly overruled.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Arnold Tripp, attorney for appellants.", "Paden & G-ridley, attorneys for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Henry Friedman et al. v. Edward Schoengen et al.\n1, Equity Practice\u2014Exceptions to Master\u2019s Report.\u2014An exception to a master\u2019s report should specifically point out, by reference, the par-evidence relied upon to support it. The court can not be called upon to search through a mass of proofs to find evidence to sustain exceptions to a master\u2019s report.\n2. Master\u2019s Report\u2014Presumptions in Favor.\u2014Every presumption which exists in favor of the verdict of a jury is in favor of a master\u2019s report upon the facts.\nSub-contractor\u2019s Lien.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Oliver H. Horton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 24, 1895.\nArnold Tripp, attorney for appellants.\nPaden & G-ridley, attorneys for appellees." }, "file_name": "0376-01", "first_page_order": 374, "last_page_order": 376 }