{
  "id": 5164807,
  "name": "E. F. Thompson v. Frank G. Yates et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Yates",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "262",
  "last_page": "263",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 262"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "5 Gil. 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilmer",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Ill. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5259340
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/39/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5069133
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0145-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 2085,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.776286285552774e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3607648554027667
    },
    "sha256": "0479d4030d653e4a00fcf40f882a6c2a8ba2b59329a06871482ce7693e0c3401",
    "simhash": "1:594e59a01c2aa198",
    "word_count": 362
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. F. Thompson v. Frank G. Yates et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis case, with the parties reversed, was here four years ago (44 Ill. App. 145), and the decree for the now appellant was reversed for want of proof of an execution returned unsatisfied. That proof is now in the record; but apparently because the appellant was not content with one execution so returned, but sued out two more, \u2022 which were likewise' so returned, but to the returns were added the words \u201c returned with schedule,\u201d the bill was dismissed upon an implication from those words that Tates might have had property to satisfy them.\nIf anything is implied it is merely that Yates had'only property exempt from execution, which is not in the way of this judgment creditor\u2019s bill. It is not denied that the judgment of a justice of the peace may be the foundation of such a bill. Steere v. Hoagland, 39 Ill. 264.\nHo proof was offered of any right by anybody other than Yates to the fund which the bill sought to reach, and therefore the decree should have been in favor of the appellant for that fund.\nThe decree is reversed and a decree entered here in favor of the appellant against the Home National Bank of Chicago, for the sum of $52.90, without costs. Fuqua v. Robinson, 5 Gil. 128.\nThe appellant will recover his costs here from the other appellees. Reversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thompson & King, attorneys for appellant.",
      "E. A. Sherburne, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. F. Thompson v. Frank G. Yates et al.\n1. Execution\u2014Returns \u201c With Schedule \u201d\u2014Creditor\u2019s Bill.\u2014From the fact that the words \u201creturned with schedule\u201d are added to the return of an execution unsatisfied, the court can not imply that the defendant might have had property to satisfy it. If anything is implied from such a return, it is that the defendant had only property exempt from execution which is not in the way of a creditor\u2019s bill.\nCreditor\u2019s Bill.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1895.\nThompson & King, attorneys for appellant.\nE. A. Sherburne, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0262-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 261
}