{ "id": 5272094, "name": "Edward P. Baker v. Sarah M. Mayo and Henry M. Bacon, Trustee", "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Mayo", "decision_date": "1899-12-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "86", "last_page": "88", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "86 Ill. App. 86" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "86 Ill. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2772297 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/86/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ill. App. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4914961 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/22/0269-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 299, "char_count": 5006, "ocr_confidence": 0.52, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15714603438269953 }, "sha256": "9ed7abb11bc0461bac782f315ee285dc474583a0b849a2e105282b715e1ff635", "simhash": "1:dfd3b731331fbec0", "word_count": 857 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:28:30.258939+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Edward P. Baker v. Sarah M. Mayo and Henry M. Bacon, Trustee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal in a foreclosure case. It is claimed by appellant\u2019s counsel that the court erred in appointing the receiver; that the decree was erroneous in requiring payment of the debt in gold\u2019 coin, and in allowing a master\u2019s and solicitor\u2019s fees.\nIt appears that appellant purchased the equity in the property involved, but did not assume or agree to pay any part of the debt secured by the trust deed, and is not liable therefor. Appellant was served with summons, and not appearing, a decree pro confesso was entered against him of record. The order appointing the receiver, finds the following facts: that appellant is owner of the equity of redemption; that the bill has been taken as confessed against him, his wife, and the successor in trust named in the trust deed; that all the other defendants have entered their appearance in writing and consented to the appointment of the receiver; that the property is scant security for the debt; that the defendants personally liable are insolvent and unable to pay; that the rents, issues and profits are by the trust deed conveyed as part of the security; that appellant is in possession and collecting said rents and profits, and that complainant will suffer loss and damage unless a receiver is appointed.\nThe facts so found by the court are sufficient to justify the order appointing the receiver.\nThere is nothing in the record to show that there was evidence before the court, at the time the receiver was appointed, controverting such findings.\nThe default taken against appellant was subsequently vacated, and he has answered. He appears to have then moved to set aside the appointment of the receiver. The fifth is the only assignment of error which applies to the refusal to vacate the order making such appointment, and that has been stricken from the record by order of this court, having been written there without leave after the transcript was here filed. We can not, therefore, consider such alleged error.\nThe decree finds the amount of the principal and interest due, and directs sale of the premises unless paid, within the time prescribed, in gold coin of the United States, in accordance with the provisions of the note which the trust deed was given to secure. It is said there is error in this, but the point is not argued; nor is there any assignment of error which advises us in what the alleged error is supposed to consist. If it is meant that because the decree includes interest and so finds a larger sum due than was due at the date of the master\u2019s report, it is erroneous; no such error is assigned. If the point was properly before us, it could not be sustained. McClain v. Weise, 22 Ill. App. 269-272. So far as we can ascertain from the abstract, the decree makes no allowance whatever for master\u2019s fees, and we discover no error in that respect.\nIt is suggested by appellant\u2019s counsel- that the only evidence as to the reasonableness of the allowance for solicit- or\u2019s fees, is contained in depositions returned with the master\u2019s report, which are not signed, and that it does not appear that such signatures were waived.\nIt is said in Jones v. King, 86 Ill. 225 : \u201c This might have been good ground to suppress the evidence had a motion been entered in the Circuit Court for that purpose, but appellants have waived the objection by their silence.\u201d The point was not raised before the master or in the trial court.\nWe are asked to allow appellee statutory damages upon the ground that the appeal was taken only for delay.- We are of opinion that it is not a case requiring such allowance.\nThe decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nMr. Justice Shepard, having appointed the receiver, did not participate in the consideration of the case here.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Charles Pickler, attorney for appellant.", "Henry Schofield, attorney for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Edward P. Baker v. Sarah M. Mayo and Henry M. Bacon, Trustee.\n1. Receivers\u2014Facts Justifying the Appointment.\u2014The fact that the property is scant security for the debt; that the defendants personally liable are insolvent and unable to pay; that the rents, issues and profits are by the trust deed conveyed as part of the security; that appellant is in possession and collecting said rents and profits; and that complainant will suffer loss and damage unless a receiver is appointed,-are sufficient to justify the order appointing the receiver.\n3. Appellate Court Practice\u2014 When the Court Will Not Consider an Assignment of Error.\u2014An assignment of error which applies to the refusal to vacate the order making an appointment of a receiver, which has been stricken from the record by order of this court, having been written there without leave after the transcript was here filed, will not be considered by this court.\nForeclosure.\u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Theodore Brent ano, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 5, 1899.\nCharles Pickler, attorney for appellant.\nHenry Schofield, attorney for appellees." }, "file_name": "0086-01", "first_page_order": 94, "last_page_order": 96 }