{
  "id": 5170828,
  "name": "Comstock-Castle Stove Company v. W. W. Baldwin",
  "name_abbreviation": "Comstock-Castle Stove Co. v. Baldwin",
  "decision_date": "1896-03-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "255",
  "last_page": "257",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 255"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5169757
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/63/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5159402
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/60/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 Ill. 288",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2885915
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/116/0288-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5169757
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/63/0259-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2818,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15598129466235292
    },
    "sha256": "acf617a3ca480cd395c79fcca9b3898ba5223a4e0d5ae8775ed7a86ef48975f1",
    "simhash": "1:5b5937cb3db09270",
    "word_count": 473
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:49.987215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Comstock-Castle Stove Company v. W. W. Baldwin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe appellant was complainant in a cross-bill filed in a chancery cause wherein the appellee was the complainant in an original bill, each of them endeavoring to have the assets of an insolvent corporation applied to the satisfaction of their respective claims against that corporation. The title of the appellant to relief was dependent upon establishing that the claim of the appellee was fraudulent. The case was referred to a master who reported against the appellant upon that question. Exceptions by the appellant to that report were overruled, so that the report stands, and if the exceptions were rightly overruled, the master\u2019s report is a proper foundation for the decree dismissing the cross-bill of the appellant.\nThere is in the assignment of errors nothing which questions the propriety of the action of the court upon those exceptions, and therefore the decree must be affirmed. Ditch v. Sennott, 116 Ill. 288.\nIt is true, as the assignment of errors implies, that the record does not show that the master\u2019s report was filed in the Circuit Court, but there were two stipulations in that court between the parties which treat the report as being on file. It is now sent up, over the certificate of the clerk, as part of the record of the Circuit Court, and filed here, as such, by the appellant.\nIt is not open to question that it was a part of the record upon which the court made the decree appealed from. And the exceptions to the master\u2019s report are of that general character, requiring a search through the whole evidence to determine whether they were well taken, which we have so often held to be unavailing. The subject is considered at considerable length in McMannomy v. Walker, 63 Ill. App. 259, and has been before us very often. Minchrod v. Ullman, 60 Ill. App. 400; Williams v. Lindblom, Ibid. 465.\nThe decree is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James E. Purnell, attorney for appellant.",
      "Edward Owings Towne, Richard H. Towne, and Smith, Helmer & Moulton, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Comstock-Castle Stove Company v. W. W. Baldwin.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014When a Decree loill be Affirmed.\u2014 Where there is nothing in an assignment of errors which questions the action of the court upon the exceptions taken to the master\u2019s report, upon which report the decree is founded, the decree will be affirmed.\n2. Equity Practice\u2014Exceptions to Master's Report.\u2014Exceptions to a master\u2019s report which are of that general character, requiring a search through the whole evidence to determine whether they are well taken, are unavailing. McMannomy v. Walker, 63 Ill. App. 259.\nBill for Belief.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 31, 1896.\nJames E. Purnell, attorney for appellant.\nEdward Owings Towne, Richard H. Towne, and Smith, Helmer & Moulton, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0255-02",
  "first_page_order": 251,
  "last_page_order": 253
}