{
  "id": 5161931,
  "name": "Strauss Brothers Co. v. Ira B. White et al.; Fred P. White v. Strauss Brothers Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Strauss Bros. v. White",
  "decision_date": "1895-11-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 171"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "145 Ill. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5485720
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/145/0085-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3071,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15589267945737376
    },
    "sha256": "50b33cd0b370b2942e56869a38b55c16f9abb4471fb056abb24e5621ef37168c",
    "simhash": "1:411ef0fa080eabcf",
    "word_count": 517
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Strauss Brothers Co. v. Ira B. White et al. Fred P. White v. Strauss Brothers Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe alleged fraudulent transfer of the Farmer City property to the wife of Ira B. White occurred more than two years before the filing of the affidavit.\nEven though it be a continuing fraud, and as such open to attack by subsequent as well as precedent creditors in accordance with the rule announced in Bostwick v. Blake, 145 Ill. 85, yet it would not constitute a ground for attachment under the statute.\nOur construction of the statute is, the fraudulent act relied upon must have been committed within two years prior to the filing of the affidavit.\nA fraudulent transfer not made within that period does not answer the statute, though its character be such that the creditors could prevail in a direct attack upon it.\nWhether the transaction between Ira and Fred P. White, whereby the latter, as he claimed, became possessed of the goods involved in the interpleader was fraudulent, was a question of fact.\nHo propositions of law were presented to the court.\nIt is, therefore, presumed that the trial judge entertained correct views as to the rules of law applicable to the case.\nWe have carefully considered the evidence and find no reason to declare that the finding and judgment is manifestly against the weight thereof. The judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. A. Lemon, attorney for appellants; Y. Warner, of counsel.",
      "Herrick & Herrick, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Strauss Brothers Co. v. Ira B. White et al. Fred P. White v. Strauss Brothers Co.\n1. Attachment\u2014Fraudulent Transfer of Property\u2014limitations.\u2014 A fraudulent transfer of property relied upon as a ground for an attachment must have been committed within two years prior to the filing of the affidavit.\n2. Presumptions\u2014Where no Propositions of Law are Submitted.\u2014 Where no propositions of law are submitted to the court below, the presumption is that the judge entertained correct views as to the rules of law applicable to the case.\nAttachment.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of De Witt County; the Hon. Lyman Lacey, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 15, 1895.\nStatement of the Case.\nStrauss Bros. Co., the appellants, on the 14th day of January, 1895, procured a writ of attachment to issue against the goods and chattels, etc., of Ira B. White, upon the ground that said White had, within two years prior thereto, fraudulently conveyed, assigned or disposed of his property with intent to hinder and delay his creditors.\nFred P. White filed an interpleader setting out his alleged ownership of certain chattel property levied upon by virtue of the writ.\nIssue in assumpsit and upon a traverse of the grounds of attachment were joined between the plaintiff company and Ira B. White, and upon the interpleader between the company and Fred P, White.\nThe cases were consolidated, a jury waived, and both submitted together to the court for decision.\nThe finding and judgment was in favor of the appellant company upon the issue in assumpsit, and adverse to it upon the other issues.\nThe company appealed.\nE. A. Lemon, attorney for appellants; Y. Warner, of counsel.\nHerrick & Herrick, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 169,
  "last_page_order": 170
}