{
  "id": 5250988,
  "name": "H. M. Parks v. J. R. Rector and Harriet Mayer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parks v. Rector",
  "decision_date": "1897-06-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "445",
  "last_page": "446",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 445"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2013,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "sha256": "ffd0df7f024d16d7f170d5912407501cd75481ff53421e8fc488c73b3cca6813",
    "simhash": "1:62e30972b0b36b55",
    "word_count": 343
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. M. Parks v. J. R. Rector and Harriet Mayer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scofield\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nBy virtue of an execution issued on a judgment in favor of Scudder & Co. against J. A., J. V. and J. L. Mayer, the appellant, who was sheriff of Williamson county, levied on the interest of Harriet E. Mayer, wife of J. M. Mayer, in a restaurant stock owned by her and one Rector, the appellees herein, who were doing business under the firm name of Rector & Co.\nThis action was brought by appellees to recover damages for injury to the stock while in the sheriff\u2019s hands. The damages were assessed by the jury at $150.\nAppellant contends that the interest of Harriet E. Mayer in the stock of goods came to her as the result of fraudulent transfers made for the purpose of hindering and delaying her husband\u2019s creditors; also that her interest in -the stock was not purchased with her separate property; also that her husband had control of the property and mingled his earnings and labor therewith so that what was his could not be distinguished from what was hers; and that, on either of these grounds, the wife\u2019s interest in the property could be taken for the husband\u2019s debt.\nThe evidence on these propositions and all other material questions of fact was conflicting, and the verdict of the iury in favor of appellees is conclusive of the controversy.\nThe instructions, though subject to criticism, announce the law with substantial accuracy, and the jury could not have been misled thereby.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scofield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Clemens & Warder, attorneys for appellant.",
      "W. W. Duncan, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. M. Parks v. J. R. Rector and Harriet Mayer.\n1. Verdicts\u2014On Conflicting Evidence.\u2014The evidence, on all the material questions of fact involved in this case, was conflicting, and the verdict of the jury is conclusive of the controversy.\nTrespass, for a wrongful levy. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Williamson County; the Hon. Oliver A. Barker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the February term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 10, 1897.\nClemens & Warder, attorneys for appellant.\nW. W. Duncan, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0445-01",
  "first_page_order": 445,
  "last_page_order": 446
}