{
  "id": 5187893,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. John and James Dobson, v. Christian C. Kohlsaat, Judge of the Probate Court of Cook County",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Dobson v. Kohlsaat",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "505",
  "last_page": "507",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 505"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "146 Ill. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3067165
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/146/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2836545
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/98/0300-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3684,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0678041250728424e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5588308430337058
    },
    "sha256": "df2a57f84a6cddef96f533dcb54b0e3beac1d6d6c3d7d6d207a938e7250fd2cd",
    "simhash": "1:116fce6cb7f6d9a0",
    "word_count": 641
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:14.451346+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. John and James Dobson, v. Christian C. Kohlsaat, Judge of the Probate Court of Cook County."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a petition on the relation of John and James Dobson for a mandamus to the appellee, who is judge of the Probate Court of Cook County.\nFrom the appellants\u2019 brief we take the facts, that on the 17th day of September, 1895, the rela'tors filed in the Probate Court their petition to compel Anna B. Hughes, executrix of William Hughes, to pay a claim the relators had against the estate of William Hughes.\nThat on the 5th day of August, 1891, before the predecessor in office of the appellee, the executrix settled her accounts, showing that she had fully administered; that at that settlement the relators excepted to the allowance of certain items in her account; that such exceptions were overruled, and the account was approved; that the relators then prayed, but did not perfect, an appeal.\nHo final order discharging the executrix was entered in the Probate Court.\nThe petition filed by the relators on the 17th day of September, 1895, the Probate Court denied, and denied an appeal from the order denying the petition.\nHow, admit that the appeal should have been granted\u2014we say neither yes nor no to that\u2014yet it appears that the executrix had finally settled her accounts, over the exceptions of the relators, four years before.\nThey could not again litigate the matters them determined. We have been referred to no statute requiring a formal order of discharge of an executor or administrator as condition precedent to the termination of the proceedings in the Probate Court. It would seem that when, as in this case, an executrix files an account which is approved, showing that the whole estate is administered, that must be the end; but be that as it may, the adjudication by the court upon the 5th day of August, 1891, on the exceptions of the relators, should be held final. Dickson v. Hitt, 98 Ill. 300.\nTo require an executor or .administrator to preserve, for an indefinite period, vouchers and proofs, to support an account which the Probate Court has approved, and no appeal taken from its decision, would be very dangerous. If the decision by the Probate Court in 1891 was final, then the appellee rightly denied the petition filed in 1895, and even if an appeal ought then to have been granted, it could have availed the relators nothing.\nHow, a mandamus will not be awarded unless it will \u201cbe effectual as a remedy if enforced.\u201d People v. McConnell, 146 Ill. 532.\nAs an appeal would do the relators no good, a mandamus to grant an appeal ought not to go.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing the petition for a mandamus, is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bulkley, Gray & More and L. S. Hodges, attorneys for appellants.",
      "John P. Ahrens, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. John and James Dobson, v. Christian C. Kohlsaat, Judge of the Probate Court of Cook County.\n1. Administration op Estates\u2014 When it is at an End.\u2014It would seem that when an executor files an account which is approved, showing that the whole estate is administered, that must be the end of the administration, although no final order discharging the executor is entered by the Probate Court,, especially after the lapse of four years.\n3. Appeals\u2014Error Without Injury.\u2014When an appeal ought to have been granted, but could have availed the parties asking it nothing, its denial is error without injury.\n3. Mandamus\u2014When Not to he Awarded.\u2014A writ of mandamus will not be awarded unless it will be effectual as a remedy if enforced.\nMandamus.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edwabd F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 5, 1896.\nBulkley, Gray & More and L. S. Hodges, attorneys for appellants.\nJohn P. Ahrens, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0505-01",
  "first_page_order": 501,
  "last_page_order": 503
}