{
  "id": 5152166,
  "name": "Ignatz Deimel v. Thomas Parker, Jr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Deimel v. Parker",
  "decision_date": "1895-07-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "426",
  "last_page": "428",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 426"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "6 Paige 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Paige Ch.",
      "case_ids": [
        2181748
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/paige-ch/6/0127-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3361,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5997128464165464e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6836491239450639
    },
    "sha256": "a7a162c215f1fd3fbb0ab28599399a75511af2da07fa51944378719bfe02ad1a",
    "simhash": "1:72d6d5378d143788",
    "word_count": 591
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:36.719815+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ignatz Deimel v. Thomas Parker, Jr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe abstract is of a record here, twenty-eight pages, and contains intrinsic evidence that some thousands of pages, of which we can know nothing, are in the whole record in the Circuit Court.\nThe appellant\u2019s brief says: \u201c The appellant is only bound to bring to this court so much of the transcript of the record as he deems sufficient to present the questions he desires to have determined by this court.\u201d We have so frequently given our reasons for holding that we can not reverse a judgment upon a partial record of the court which rendered the judgment, that we need not repeat them. But on this record, even treating it as complete, we see no ground for reversal.\nThe first thing to which appellant objects is that his first exception to a report of the master was overruled. The order of reference required the master to \u201c report his conclusions, and specify particularly the evidence heard and considered by him,\u201d etc. The appellant objected that the direction to \u201c specify particularly \u201d was not obeyed. We can not tell. The reference by the master to other parts of the record may have been definite enough for all practical purposes with the record present. But if not, an exception to his report is not the way to reach the defect.\nExceptions are only proper where the master has come to a wrong conclusion. Tyler v. Simmons, 6 Paige 127.\nFor any neglect to fully comply with the order of reference, a special application for some sort of order to have the defect repaired is the proper proceeding. Same case.\nThe fragment of the record that is here shows that the suit was a bill in chancery to dissolve a partnership of three other Deimels, and that the appellant claimed\u2014on a reference to receive proof of claims\u2014to be a creditor of the partnership, as holder of some notes against it, which he had bought from a bona fide holder, but, as the master found, with the money of the firm paid to the appellant for the purpose of taking up the notes. His argument that he would have had a good claim against the firm upon the notes if the bona fide holder had given them to him, and therefore he was entitled to have them allowed, seems to us to have little application to a case where they were bought with the money of the firm.\nThe bona fide creditors of an insolvent firm do not divide with mala fide.\nI have found no authority for this seemingly self-evident proposition, except Sec. 5 of the statute concerning \u201c assignments for benefit of creditors,\u201d and the last line under \u201c creditors \u201d in the index to Dan. Chy., 2410.\nThe decree is affirmed. '",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Duncan & Gilbert, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Moran, Kraus & Mayer, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ignatz Deimel v. Thomas Parker, Jr.\ni. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Partial Records.\u2014The court will not reverse a judgment upon a partial record of the court which rendered it.\n3. Practice\u2014Exceptions to a Master\u2019s Report.\u2014Exceptions to a master\u2019s report is proper only where he has come to a wrong conclusion; for any neglect to comply with the order of reference, a special application to the court for an order to have the defect repaired is the proper proceeding.\nBill in Equity.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Lorin C. Collins, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 5, 1895.\nDuncan & Gilbert, attorneys for appellant.\nMoran, Kraus & Mayer, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0426-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 426
}