{
  "id": 5176719,
  "name": "Sigmund Eibenschutz v. Emil C. Wetten",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eibenschutz v. Wetten",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "617",
  "last_page": "618",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 617"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 587",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3058932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/148/0587-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5447467
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/138/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 650",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        868958
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/62/0650-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 2920,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1560258918570156
    },
    "sha256": "d6064e9fabec27d33cb30967d732ec845c751fc74b05d51717999eb59d5f079d",
    "simhash": "1:3ae696ba1cba10df",
    "word_count": 493
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sigmund Eibenschutz v. Emil C. Wetten."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe appellee is the assignee for the benefit of creditors of Abe Fink, administering the assets under the direction of the County Court. The assignment was made January 21, 1896.\nAbout six months before that date the appellant and Fink had made an agreement as follows:\n\u201c Agreement between Mr. S. Eibenschutz and Abe Fink, located in Chicago, Cook county.\nI, Abe Fink, declare that Mr. Sigmund Eibenschutz is entitled to one-half of profits after deducting expenses of all sales of my business located at -. Should I, Fink, find business profitable, I declare to invest $1,500 (fifteen hundred dollars) on the 1st of October, 1895, or before\u2014otherwise I have the right to close out the stock at any time; at present I have to invest five hundred dollars.\nI, Sigmund Eibenschutz, agree to do the buying and selling to my best ability. Both parties have the right to draw every week the profits after deducting the expense.\nAbe Fink.\nS. Eibenschutz.\nChicago, July 24, 1895.\u201d\nJanuary 25, 1896, appellant filed in the County Court a petition, the object of which, we will assume\u2014though how it was to be done is not very clear\u2014was to get the assets under the control of a court of chancery, winding up the partnership which the appellant claimed was created by his agreement with Fink.\nWe regard that agreement as one for compensation for services, not of partnership. It contains no hint that Fink intended to part with any interest in his property, and even if it created a partnership in profits, the stock was Fink\u2019s still, as there is no allegation that any undivided profits had accumulated.\nThe agreement contemplated that all profits would be divided every week, so that Fink would never have more than the equivalent of his investment. This is not a case involving the rights of a third party, as in Illingworth v. Parker, 62 Ill. App. 650.\nThe question here is, what did the parties themselves intend, and it is not possible to believe that either of them supposed that Fink was giving to the appellant any property in the stock Fink had or would have. Between themselves their intention governs. Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice Machine Co., 138 Ill. 67; Grinton v. Strong, 148 Ill. 587.\nThis view of the case makes it unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the clerk\u2019s certificate to the record.\nThe order dismissing the. petition is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bernhardt J. Frank and P. O\u2019Neil Byrne, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Cratty Bros., Gray, MacLaren, Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sigmund Eibenschutz v. Emil C. Wetten.\n1. Contracts\u2014Construction of\u2014Intention.\u2014As between the parties to a contract the intention governs in the construction of the same.\nVoluntary Assignments.\u2014Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 11, 1896.\nBernhardt J. Frank and P. O\u2019Neil Byrne, attorneys for appellant.\nCratty Bros., Gray, MacLaren, Jarvis & Cleveland, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0617-01",
  "first_page_order": 615,
  "last_page_order": 616
}