{
  "id": 5348801,
  "name": "Livingston Compton et al. v. Margiana M. Randolph et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Compton v. Randolph",
  "decision_date": "1882-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "555",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 Ill. 555"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5319257
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0161-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 3459,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15829706674018446
    },
    "sha256": "46b91643af3cead7749fe192f87cded8fe5531c5fe0d7b093a78bdc238bbe7ab",
    "simhash": "1:c8f51d85404a9b92",
    "word_count": 599
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:57.202414+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Livingston Compton et al. v. Margiana M. Randolph et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nMargiana M. Randolph and John Randolph Peeples, claiming to be the owners in fee each of an undivided half of the premises in question, filed their petition in the circuit court of Cook county, in which they set. forth the destruction of the public records containing the evidence of their title, and ask to have their title established and confirmed in them, \\ under the provisions of the act of 1872, commonly known as the \u201cBurnt Records act. \u201d A number of persons were named as defendants, some of whom disclaimed having any interest in the property, and others were defaulted, but defendants Livingston Compton and Edward J. Whitehead filed their answers to such petition, in which they deny the alleged ownership of petitioners, as set forth in their petition, and also set forth their own claim to the property involved. Replications were filed to the answers of these defendants, and the cause was submitted for hearing on the petition, answers, replications and proof reported by the master in chancery, and the court found the issues for petitioners, and' established the title to the premises in them. The defendants defending in the circuit court bring the case directly to this court on error.\nIt will not be necessary, at this time, to remark upon all the questions raised and discussed on the present record. That can be better done when the case shall be finally considered upon its merits. The present judgment must be reversed on account of the error of the trial court in the admission of improper evidence. Petitioners, to sustain. their title, gave in evidence, over the objections of defendants, a copy of a \u201cletter press copy\u201d of an abstract of title made in the ordinary course of business, and also the \u201cletter press copy\u201d itself. This was error. The statute has made an \u201cabstract of title made in the ordinary course of business, \u201d prior to the destruction of title papers, competent evidence to show title to land, but it has not made a copy of a \u201cletter press copy\u201d of such abstract, or the \u201cletter press copy\u201d itself, competent evidence. The question raised need not now be discussed as a new question. It was definitely settled by the decision of this court in' King v. Worthington, 73 Ill. 161, and it was error in the circuit court not to observe the rule as declared in that case.\nThe de'cree of the circuit court will be reversed, and the cause remanded. \u25a0\nDecree reversed.\nDickey and Sheldon, JJ-.: The record in this ease showing that the abstract of title was destroyed, we are of opinion the letter press copy of it was admissible in evidence.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Chas. H. Wood, and Mr. E. J. Whitehead, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "Messrs. Goudy & Chandler, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Livingston Compton et al. v. Margiana M. Randolph et al.\nFiled at Ottawa November 20, 1882.\nEvidence of title\u2014under Burnt Records act. The statute known as the \u201cBurnt ^Records act,\u201d makes an \u201cabstract of title made in the ordinary course of business,\u201d prior to the destruction of the title papers and records, competent evidence to show title to land, but not a copy of a \u201cletter press copy\u201d of such abstract, or the \u201cletter press copy\u201d itself, and it is error, in a proceeding under that statute to establish title, to admit in evidence such letter press copy of an abstract, or a copy thereof.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Gardner, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Chas. H. Wood, and Mr. E. J. Whitehead, for the plaintiffs in error.\nMessrs. Goudy & Chandler, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0555-01",
  "first_page_order": 555,
  "last_page_order": 557
}