{
  "id": 4834057,
  "name": "George H. Marvin v. Elizabeth Collins",
  "name_abbreviation": "Marvin v. Collins",
  "decision_date": "1880-12-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "353",
  "last_page": "354",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 Ill. App. 353"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Brad. 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Bradf.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2006,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.270239832484313e-08,
      "percentile": 0.26995261113678826
    },
    "sha256": "61e9dcd9a241ebc09e467485463681e704f797ef0819b5666ae5efaa9f2d8773",
    "simhash": "1:5831b692c57293d8",
    "word_count": 347
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:10.588151+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George H. Marvin v. Elizabeth Collins."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pillsbury, J.\nBill in equity filed by appellee against- the appellant, to enforce a lien upon real estate accruing to her by-virtue of a former decree of the circuit court, and also to establish title in herself to certain land,'in the bill described, and to set aside and cancel the title of the defendant to said lands.\nThe court below in its decree finds that the appellee is in equity the owner of a portion of the land, and awards it to her, and sets aside and annuls two deeds under which the appellant claims title \u2014 one a. tax deed and the other an administrator\u2019s deed \u2014 made by the administrator of the former owner. A motion is made to dismiss the appeal because it involves a freehold. The motion must be allowed. A freehold being involved, this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal. Sess. Laws of 1879, page 222; Lequatte v. Drury, 6 Brad. 389.\nIt is suggested in opposition to said motion to dismiss, that as the principal relief granted was a decree for the accrued alimony and the enforcement of the lien therefor, this court has jurisdiction. This suggestion cannot avail. From an examination of the record, it is clear that this court cannot determine the whole merits of this appeal without adjudicating upon this question of freehold. It is directly involved and must be determined. In such case it is not enough that other questions may arise over which this court might exercise appellate jurisdiction if they were standing alone in the record. C. & W. I. R. R. Co. v. Dunbar, 95 Ill. 577.\nThe appeal will be dismissed.\nDismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pillsbury, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Botsford, Barry & Russell, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. A. J. Hopkins and Mr. A. G. McDole, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George H. Marvin v. Elizabeth Collins.\nJurisdiction \u2014 Freehold.\u2014Where the court cannot determine the whole merits of an appeal without adjudicating upon the question of freehold, it will not take jurisdiction of the appeal.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Kane county; the Hon. C. W. Upton, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed December 4, 1880.\nMessrs. Botsford, Barry & Russell, for the appellant.\nMr. A. J. Hopkins and Mr. A. G. McDole, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0353-01",
  "first_page_order": 349,
  "last_page_order": 350
}