{
  "id": 5251704,
  "name": "John Dobson and James Dobson v. C. E. More, Assignee, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dobson v. More",
  "decision_date": "1897-05-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "89",
  "last_page": "91",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 89"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2963,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6897494796028649
    },
    "sha256": "4a4e2898cd85ce75c7bc500dc9a67e6609ec19be78518e92a9b94f47b7cb0401",
    "simhash": "1:eb15fe4ee9691256",
    "word_count": 517
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Dobson and James Dobson v. C. E. More, Assignee, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThe appellee is the assignee of the Wilson & Bay less Company, a corporation, administering the assets under the direction of the County Court.\nThe company was incorporated in the fall of 1888\u2014the certificate beingmecorded October 8, 1888.\nThe business in which it engaged had, before the incorporation, been conducted by George Wilson, Jr., and Theodore P. Bayless, under the firm name of Wilson & Bayless; and it' may be conceded that the purpose in incorporating was to put the stock in trade of the firm into the possession of the corporation, out of the reach of the creditors of the firm\u2014to hinder, if not to defraud them.\nMarch 11, 1889, the appellants took judgment against the members of the firm upon a debt which existed before the incorporation, and levied upon goods in the possession of, and claimed, by, the corporation. By arrangement, the goods were surrendered by the sheriff to the assignee without prejudice to any rights acquired by the levy.\nMow if the case showed\u2014what we have sought in vain to find, that the identical goods levied upon, or any of them, had ever been the property of the firm\u2014were in the stock in trade transferred by the firm to the corporation\u2014then the question of fraud in that transfer could be raised. But there is no proof, nor presumption, that goods in the possession of, and claimed as its own by the corporation in March, 1889, came to its possession from the firm in October, 1888, and it is not the law that the creditor of a fraudulent grantor may levy upon property of the fraudulent grantee which he did not get from that grantor.\nWhat is herein stated as to the judgment, execution and levy is taken from recitals in petitions, answers, and orders in the County Court which the parties tacitly assume to be true.\nThe judgment, execution and return thereon were offered in evidence by the appellants, but rejected by the court, to Avhich the appellants excepted, but do not allude to in their brief. In all the recitals alluded to, and in all the evidence, no one article is specified as included in the levy.\nFrom the testimony of W ilson there is a vague inference that carpets\u2014without more words, carpets\u2014which had belonged to the firm were levied upon.\nA judgment may not be reversed upon such an inference.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. S. Hodges, and Dent & Whitman, attorneys for appellants; L. W. Barringer, of counsel.",
      "Bulkley, Gray & More, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Dobson and James Dobson v. C. E. More, Assignee, etc.\n1. Executions\u2014Levy of, on Property in Hands of Fraudulent Grantee.\u2014The credit >r of a fraudulent grantor may levy upon only such property of the fraudulent grantee as he is shown to have received from the grantor.\nPetition, in assignment proceedings. Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 6, 1897.\nL. S. Hodges, and Dent & Whitman, attorneys for appellants; L. W. Barringer, of counsel.\nBulkley, Gray & More, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0089-01",
  "first_page_order": 89,
  "last_page_order": 91
}