{
  "id": 5185862,
  "name": "William M. R. Vose v. Josiah Cratty et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vose v. Cratty",
  "decision_date": "1896-10-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "472",
  "last_page": "473",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 472"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "129 Ill. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2963568
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "193, 194"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/129/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2803094
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/103/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ill. 406",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2812902
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/102/0406-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2245,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47220301260807096
    },
    "sha256": "593690a561da42248bf5f31e746f8df77c78a828f2737d13fbf1bbe6f05d39f1",
    "simhash": "1:0d4352c83a5da09c",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:14.451346+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William M. R. Vose v. Josiah Cratty et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nSince this case was docketed in this court, it has lost all practical importance.\nThe writ of error was sued out to review an order of the County Court, removing an assignee under an assignment for the benefit of creditors for causes alleged, other than those for which the statute provides\u2014in section 12 of the act of 1877 concerning voluntary assignments\u2014that an assignee may be removed by that court.\nBut since the writ was sued out all the creditors have been paid, all the property disposed of, and all proceedings in the County Court ended. There is no longer in that court anything to which a remand of this cause could attach. Under such circumstances, we content ourselves with saying that a County Court can remove an assignee only for statutory causes. Munroe v. People, 102 Ill. 406.\nThe order is reversed at the costs of the defendants in error, but without remanding anything anywhere.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Whitehead & Stoker, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "E. M. Ashcraft and Thomas Cratty, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William M. R. Vose v. Josiah Cratty et al.\n1. Voluntary Assignments.\u2014Removal of the Assignee by the County Court.\u2014A County Court can remove an assignee only for statutory causes.\n2. Appellate Court Practice.\u2014Where a Cause Will Not be Remanded.\u2014Where there is no longer, in the court below, anything to which a remand of a cause can attach, the court will not remand it- in case of a reversal.\nError, to the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles H. Donelly, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed October 22, 1896.\nWhitehead & Stoker, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nE. M. Ashcraft and Thomas Cratty, attorneys for defendant in error.\nThe act of 1877 stripped the assignee in insolvency of his common law character. He is no longer a trustee in the sense that term is used in the older cases. He is an officer of the court, the right arm of the court, with power and obligations and character strictly analogous to those of a receiver. Freydendall v. Baldwin, 103 Ill. 325; Davis v. Chicago Dock Co., 129 Ill. 180, 193, 194.\nThe removal of a receiver rests in the sound discretion of the court and is not re viewable by appeal or writ of error. High on Receivers, 2d Ed., Sec. 825; 20 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law, 225, and cases cited."
  },
  "file_name": "0472-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 469
}