{
  "id": 5163809,
  "name": "William Thompson et al. v. Charles V. Marsh et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Marsh",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "269",
  "last_page": "272",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 269"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5122103
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/50/0597-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5288137,
        5285222
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/24/0257-02",
        "/ill/24/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 Ill. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2964083
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/129/0009-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2687870
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/79/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2583302
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/13/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5782526
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/56/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ohio St. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "case_ids": [
        524688
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st/15/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ohio St. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "case_ids": [
        919412
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st/41/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N. Y. 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        549459
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/87/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        12127207
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/130/0426-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Ill. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2992896
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/136/0354-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 Ill. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 314,
    "char_count": 5058,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3655043209082846
    },
    "sha256": "b7a89d222253cae3895d4aa309506d3b918037868b0d041754835267167ce8fa",
    "simhash": "1:5a38db5eee33ef1f",
    "word_count": 879
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Thompson et al. v. Charles V. Marsh et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIt is quite true, as urged by appellees, that an unassigned, consummate right of dower is a right resting in action, only. Best v. Jenks, 123 Ill. 47; Bedford v. Bedford, 136 Ill. 354; Hart v. Burch, 130 Ill. 426.\nIt is because it is a right resting in action only, and not an alienable estate, a thing which can be released, not transferred, that a bill in equity may be maintained by a judgment creditor to obtain the appointment of a receiver and the institution of measures whereby this inalienable possession, which is, nevertheless, a substantive, consummate right, may be changed into a property capable of transfer by \"deed, and may thus be sold so that the proceeds thereof may be applied in payment of the judgment which the complainant has been unable to obtain satisfaction of by any proceeding or execution known to courts of law. Tompkins v. Ford, 4 Paige, 448; Payne v. Becker, 87 N. Y. 153; Boltz v. Stoltz, 41 Ohio St. 540; McArthur v. Franklin, 15 Ohio St. 485; Petfish v. Buck, 56 Ill. App. 149.\nThe statute does not require that as a foundation for a creditor\u2019s bill, personal demand shall have been made upon the debtor to satisfy the judgment. Alexander v. Tams, 13 Ill. 221; First National Bank v. Gage, 79 Ill. 207; Durand v. Gray, 129 Ill. 9.\nUpon the sheriff rests the responsibility of returning an execution \u201c no property found,\u201d and if he do so without direction from the creditor, it is sufficient. Bowen v. Parkhurst, 24 Ill. 257; Schuebert v. Howel, 50 Ill. App. 597.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to appoint a receiver with authority to institute measures for the assignment of the dower of Charles V. Marsh, and to apply the same, under the direction of the court, to the satisfaction of complainant\u2019s judgment.\nBeversed and remanded with directions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hoyne, Follansbee & O\u2019Connor, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Noyes & Hume, and Warwick A. Shaw, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Thompson et al. v. Charles V. Marsh et al.\n1. Creditor\u2019s Bill\u2014Unassigned Dower.\u2014An unassigned, consummate right of dower is a right resting in action only.\n3. Dower\u2014Unassigned\u2014May be reached by Judgment Creditors.\u2014 A bill in equity may be maintained by a judgment creditor to obtain the appointment of a receiver and the institution of measures whereby an unassigned right of dower may be changed into property, sold, and the proceeds applied in payment of the judgment.\n3. Demand\u2014Not Required Before Filing a Creditor's Bill.\u2014The statute does not require that as a foundation for a creditor\u2019s bill, personal demand shall have been made upon the debtor to satisfy the judgment.\n4. Sheriff\u2019s Return\u2014Foundation for a Creditor's Bill\u2014Upon the sheriff rests the responsibility of returning an execution \u201cno property found,\u201d and if he does so without directions from the creditor it is a sufficient foundation for 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 with directions.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1895.\nStatement of the Case.\nIn Hay, 1890, appellants brought suit against appellee Charles Y. Harsh, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, and on Harch 1, 1892, recovered a judgment against him for $836.72 and costs of suit, amounting to $36.76. On Harch 5, 1892, an execution was issued upon the judgment, and at the expiration of ninety days, to wit, on June 3, 1892, was returned by the sheriff, no property found and no part satisfied.\nOn February 11, 1891, Harsh\u2019s wife, Hary C. Harsh, died, leaving her husband and her children, Isaac 0. Harsh and Carrie Louise Harsh, as her only heirs at law. At the time of her death she was seized of certain real estate in Chicago.\nThe dower of Harsh in the real estate of which his wife died seized has never been assigned to him.\nOn August 5, 1892, appellants filed a bill in equity to reach the unassigned dower of Harsh and subject it to the satisfaction of their judgment.\nHarsh admits in his answer that at the time of the commencement of this suit he had no property except such as was exempt by law.\nTwo questions were raised on the hearing of the case :\n1. Will a creditor\u2019s bill, or a bill in the nature of a creditor\u2019s bill, lie to reach an unassigned dower %\n2. Were appellants bound, before filing their bill, to have a personal demand made upon Marsh for the payment of the execution against him ?\nThe Circuit Court held that the sheriff\u2019s return upon the execution was a sufficient foundation for a creditor\u2019s bill, or a bill in the nature of a creditor\u2019s bill, and that a personal demand upon Marsh for payment of the execution was not required by the statute; but that a judgment creditor could not, by bill or otherwise, reach an unassigned dower of his debtor to subject it to the payment of a judgment. The court, therefore, entered a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity. From this decree appellants have appealed.\nHoyne, Follansbee & O\u2019Connor, attorneys for appellants.\nNoyes & Hume, and Warwick A. Shaw, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0269-01",
  "first_page_order": 267,
  "last_page_order": 270
}