{
  "id": 5199321,
  "name": "Marshall Field et al. v. Joseph Stout",
  "name_abbreviation": "Field v. Stout",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "360",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 360"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2700,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3917193627891047
    },
    "sha256": "0bb7a52edbd29de952dbcaf008787affe678c6bdce02647278b6d577c2fd7de7",
    "simhash": "1:318bfca3cc8f627c",
    "word_count": 451
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Marshall Field et al. v. Joseph Stout."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion oe 'the Court.\nOn the 23d of February, 1895, the entire - stock of goods which appellee, a retail merchant at Wenona, Illinois, owned, was destroyed by fire. It was insured for $10,000. Appellee was at the time indebted to the amount of $14,000 or $15,000. He was indebted to appellants $637.03. He owed his father about $1,500, and his father was, in addition, bound as security for him to the extent of several thousand dollars.\nOn the 25th of February, 1895, appellee assigned the insurance policies to his father, who subsequently obtained an adjustment of the loss-for $9,400, which was all applied -upon the indebtedness.\nOn the 26th of February appellants commenced suit by attachment, claiming that appellee had fraudulently assigned his property for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. The issues upon the attachment were decided in favor of the defendant, but the jury found the defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $637.03, and judgment was rendered accordingly.\nAppellants ask a reversal of the judgment as to the attachment.\nThe only question involved is whether the assignment of the policies of insurance to appellee\u2019s father was for the purpose of hindering and delaying appellee\u2019s creditors in the collection of their debts. That appeljee had the right to prefer his father and other of his creditors, is too well settled in Illinois to require the citation of authorities.\nThe purpose of the assignment was to enable the father to pay in full his own debt and the debts that he had become legally and morally bound for.\nIt does not seem that there was any intention that appellee should have returned to him any part of the money that should be collected on the policies, or that there was any arrangement or understanding that any of it should be used except in discharge of legal indebtedness.\nEvery dollar was used in that way. The verdict and judgment were right, and it is unnecessary to discuss instructions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "TT at.t, & Haight, attorneys for appellants.",
      "MoDougall & Chapman, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Marshall Field et al. v. Joseph Stout.\n1. Attachments\u2014Assignments of Property.\u2014Proof that a son assigned his property to his father to secure debts due to the father and debts that the father had become legally or morally bound to pay, will not sustain an attachment on the ground that the son had fraudulently conveyed his property in order to hinder and delay his creditors in the collection of their debts.\nAttachment.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of La Salle County; the Hon. Charles Blanchard, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 9, 1896.\nTT at.t, & Haight, attorneys for appellants.\nMoDougall & Chapman, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0360-01",
  "first_page_order": 358,
  "last_page_order": 359
}