{
  "id": 5252320,
  "name": "John F. Hopper and John E. Patterson v. Rachael Davies",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hopper v. Davies",
  "decision_date": "1897-08-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "682",
  "last_page": "684",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 682"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "155 Ill. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        839755
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/155/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2753786
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/91/0228-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5247287
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 232",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5065137
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0232-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 297,
    "char_count": 4608,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1569350182192089
    },
    "sha256": "513369c2fb184be8fb48734b0e33f348230a7960d81d56c2a756b7d474c34028",
    "simhash": "1:f26e38fe19278a37",
    "word_count": 783
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John F. Hopper and John E. Patterson v. Rachael Davies."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sears\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an appeal from an interlocutory order, appointing a receiver of certain real estate.\nThe bill of complaint of appellee alleges a judgment recovered against her in favor of J. H. Waller, as administrator, etc., upon certain promissory notes, which notes, the bill alleges, had been paid; execution upon judgment, sale of the real estate in question by sheriff upon execution, sheriff\u2019s deed to appellant Patterson, conveyance by Patterson to appellant Hopper, and appropriation of rents by Patterson. Ho attack is made upon the regularity of the proceedings in which the judgment was rendered. It is, however, alleged that the complainant, appellee, was enabled to properly testify at the hearing of the cause, which resulted in the judgment, because of the serious illness of her husband, and was prevented from appealing from the judgment partly by the death of her husband, and partly by the assurance of her attorney\u2014against whom there is no charge of fraud\u2014that he would obtain a new trial.\nThe prayer of the bill is, among other things, for the setting aside of the judgment, the sheriff\u2019s deed and the deed from Patterson to Hopper.\nIt is urged that the receiver was appointed without notice to appellant Hopper. We think that upon the facts\u2014the failure to find the address of Hopper from the directory or otherwise, the refusal of Patterson and his counsel to disclose the whereabouts of Hopper, and their subsequent proffer to bring him before the court within twenty-four hours if the court would delay the appointment of a receiver, the court was fully warranted in excusing any further effort to notify Hopper.\nIt is also urged that the verification of the bill is insufficient, and Packer v. Roberts, 44 Ill. App. 232, and other cases are cited in support thereof.\nThese cases are not in point. In each there was a total failure of proper verification. In the case under consideration the entire bill, save one allegation, was directly and positively verified as matters of fact, and that single allegation, verified upon information and belief, is not a vital one.\nBut both of these contentions become unimportant from the view which we take of the bill itself and the question of its sufficiency. There are general allegations of fraud in the .bill, but the only specific allegation of any kind, attacking the validity \u00f3f the judgment, which is the basis of the title of appellant Hopper, is that the appellee, the judgment defendant, owed nothing to the plaintiff, who recovered the judgment.\nThat appellee had adequate remedy at law in this behalf, is only controverted by the allegation that the illness and death of her husband prevented a proper attention to her suit. This is in itself no ground for the intervention of a court of equity. There is no such showing of fraud, accident or mistake, as would warrant a court of equity in assuming jurisdiction to revise a judgment at law. Lucas v. Spencer, 27 Ill. 15.\nAor is the allegation of inadequacy of price paid at the sheriff\u2019s sale sufficient. O\u2019Callaghan v. O\u2019Callaghan, 91 Ill. 228.\nThe bill, as presented by the record, whatever its sufficiency for any of the other ends of relief sought, is insufficient for any relief as to the judgment and sale as affecting the title of Hopper to the real estate in question.\n\u201cIt is clear, if the court was without jurisdiction to grant the ultimate relief prayed by the bill, it had no power to appoint the receiver,\u201d etc. The People v. Weigley, 155 Ill. 491.\nThe order is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sears"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mant\u00f3n Maverick, attorney for appellant Jno. F. Hopper.",
      "George Martin, attorney for appellant Jno. E. Patterson.",
      "George A. Williams, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John F. Hopper and John E. Patterson v. Rachael Davies.\n1. Judgments.\u2014Interference With, in Equity.\u2014There is no such showing of fraud, accident or mistake in this case as warrants a court of equity in assuming jurisdiction to revise a judgment at law.\n2. Judicial Sales\u2014Inadequacy of Price.\u2014Inadequacy of price is not sufficient ground for setting aside a judicial sale.\n3. Receivers\u2014Where Court has no Jurisdiction of the Subject-Matter.\u2014If, on a bill to set aside a judicial sale, it appear that the court is \u2022 without jurisdiction to grant the ultimate relief prayed by the bill it has no power to appoint a receiver.\nBill, to set aside a judgment and sheriff\u2019s deed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed August 5, 1897.\nMant\u00f3n Maverick, attorney for appellant Jno. F. Hopper.\nGeorge Martin, attorney for appellant Jno. E. Patterson.\nGeorge A. Williams, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0682-01",
  "first_page_order": 682,
  "last_page_order": 684
}