{
  "id": 5286692,
  "name": "James H. Clark v. Annie E. Jones et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clark v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1900-12-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "451",
  "last_page": "452",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "92 Ill. App. 451"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2270,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "f39b30f5159dfc9d7935e3171406e830ff0b4d8c43ea0a9ac36ae81ca4d5dd00",
    "simhash": "1:0b1e0348b9cf0a80",
    "word_count": 370
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:47:26.957327+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James H. Clark v. Annie E. Jones et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Presiding Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn 1894, appellant was, by the Circuit Court of Coles County, appointed receiver of the Masonic Benevolent Association of Central Illinois, an insolvent fraternal life insurance company or association. He acted as such receiver for a period of six years, and for his services th\u00e9 Circuit Court allowed him $1,500, and for the services of his attorneys, $1,900. He prosecutes an appeal from the order fixing the allowance upon the ground that it is insufficient.\nThere was considerable litigation growing out of an effort to collect assessments from delinquent members \u00f3f the insolvent association. We do not care to review, in. detail, the course of that litigation, or mention in this opinion the various items of service performed by appellee. It is only necessary to say that the litigation resulted adversely to the receiver and that we have carefully considered all evidence touching the labor and skill brought by him and his attorneys to a discharge of their duties. We are unable to say that the allowance made by the Circuit Court was inadequate, either for the services rendered by appellee or for the services rendered by his attorneys. It is a matter of current knowledge that there has been a growingtendency to exhaust the assets of insolvent corporations and associations placed in the hands of receivers, by attorneys\u2019 fees, receiver\u2019s allowances and other kindred expenses. A court that keeps such expenses within reasonable bounds so as to leave something for creditors, is to be commended, and we shall manifest no disposition to interfere except in a case where the allowance is grossly inadequate. Order affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Presiding Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Andrews & Yause and J. W. & E. C. Craig, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Henley & Henley and Heal & Wiley, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James H. Clark v. Annie E. Jones et al.\n1. Receivers\u2014Allowances for Fees and Expenses.\u2014This court is not disposed to interfere with an allowance to a receiver for his services except in cases where such allowance is grossly inadequate.\nApplication for Compensation, etc.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Coles County; the Hon. Frank K. Dunn, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1900.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 7, 1900.\nAndrews & Yause and J. W. & E. C. Craig, attorneys for appellant.\nHenley & Henley and Heal & Wiley, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0451-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 476
}
