{
  "id": 869076,
  "name": "James P. Monahan et al. v. William Fitzgerald",
  "name_abbreviation": "Monahan v. Fitzgerald",
  "decision_date": "1896-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "192",
  "last_page": "193",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 192"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2421451
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/30/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. 495",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2589234
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/16/0495-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2461,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.519633190969821
    },
    "sha256": "20858d97c945e7aa747e2a3a9a34cdb8006810882421b9519a84a04601d1a6bd",
    "simhash": "1:9fdd4e90f4423229",
    "word_count": 405
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James P. Monahan et al. v. William Fitzgerald."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellants filed a bill to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien,alleging full performance of a contract by which they undertook to lath and plaster an apartment building, in accordance with specifications. The decree of the court dismissing the bill recites several particulars in which the appellants did not perform the contract, and concludes, \u201c that by reason of the non-performance of the contract, in the particulars above referred to, complainants have failed to establish a right of recovery in accordance with the averments of their bill.\u201d\nThe cause had been referred to a master, who took the testimony, and found the same omissions to perform the contract as were recited in the decree, yet recommended a decree for the appellants. They did not except to the conclusions of fact of the master, and the testimony sustained such conclusions.\nWhere the party against whom the master reports questions the legal conclusions which the master has drawn from the facts, no exception to the report need be taken. 2 Dan. Chy. 1310.\nThe objection that the appellants were not, upon the facts reported, entitled to a decree, could be made by the appellee when a decree was applied for.\nNow, under allegation of performance, excuse for nonperformance is not admissible. Higgins v. Lee, 16 Ill. 495.\nThe general question whether the appellants are entitled to any relief does not arise on this record, because there are no averments in the bill to support the case, if one be made by the evidence. Detroit Stove Works v. Koch, 30 Ill. App. 328.\nThe decree is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stirlen & King, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Black & Fitzgerald, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James P. Monahan et al. v. William Fitzgerald.\n1. Chancery Practice\u2014When Exceptions to the Master\u2019s Report Not Necessary.\u2014Where a party against whom a master reports, questions the legal conclusions which the master has drawn from the facts, no exception to the report is necessary. The objection that the adverse party is not entitled to a decree upon the facts reported can be made when the decree is applied for.\n2. Pleadings\u2014Admissibility of Proof.\u2014Under an allegation of performance, excuse for non-performance is not admissibl\u00e9.\nBill for a Mechanic\u2019s Lien\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1896.\nStirlen & King, attorneys for appellants.\nBlack & Fitzgerald, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0192-01",
  "first_page_order": 188,
  "last_page_order": 189
}