{
  "id": 5411755,
  "name": "Byron L. Smith, Receiver, v. George F. Kimball",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Kimball",
  "decision_date": "1889-05-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "583",
  "last_page": "584",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 Ill. 583"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2575861
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/11/0540-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3775,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.826625768872377e-07,
      "percentile": 0.931947962989348
    },
    "sha256": "1a03c98525d2e41f152d3b0e5d66be4f1fa3c4c3b28325fc87a52d5c06a90f45",
    "simhash": "1:c0b1ddf1d8ab1c00",
    "word_count": 661
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:54:27.396058+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Byron L. Smith, Receiver, v. George F. Kimball."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court :\nBill was filed in the Superior Court of Cook county, praying the appointment of a receiver for the Traders\u2019 Bank of Chicago. Upon hearing, the Superior Court decreed that a receiver be appointed, as prayed. An appeal was taken from that decree to the Appellate Court for the First District, and thereupon a stipulation was entered into, in writing, by the solicitors of the respective parties, and filed in the Appellate Court, as follows, \u25a0omitting the caption: \u201cIt is hereby stipulated between the parties interested in the above appeal, that the order appealed from, which was entered on the 13th day of December, A. D. 1888, in the Superior Court of Cook county, may be affirmed pro forma by the Appellate Court for the First district, State of Illinois, and the cause carried direct to the Supreme Court.\u201d' The Appellate' Court thereafter entered an order in the ease, as follows, from which this appeal is prosecuted, namely, (omitting the caption): \u201cThis day came said parties, by their respective counsel, and, on motion of appellant, it is ordered by the court that the judgment of the Superior Court of Cook county be and the same is hereby affirmed, in all things, pro* forma, in accordance with the stipulation filed herein.\u201d Then follow a judgment for costs and an order allowing an appeal to this court. The several errors assigned are, in effect, that this judgment is erroneous, giving specific reasons.\nIt is obvious from the foregoing recitals,\u2014first, that the judges of the Appellate Court exercised no judgment upon the questions involved in this case, for the pro forma entry was. made, not because they thought the merits of the case demanded it, but because they were requested to enter it; and second, that the judgment entered was requested by appellant to be entered precisely as it was entered, and if there was error committed thereby, it was therefore committed by the request of appellant.\nWhen a case is taken to the Appellate Court, it is the duty of that court to hear and decide it, and file a written opinion briefly giving its reasons for its decision. See section 17 of act to establish Appellate Courts, (Laws of 1877, p. 69,) and act amendatory thereof, (Laws of 1885, p. 65, sec. 1.) But a-party can not complain of an error which he has himself induced the court to make. And so here, if appellant is adversely affected by an erroneous judgment, it is simply because he consented and requested that it be entered. He can not assign error upon it. Armstrong et al. v. Cooper, 11 Ill. 540.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed*",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Walker & Eddy, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. H. W. Wolseley, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Byron L. Smith, Receiver, v. George F. Kimball.\nFiled at Ottawa\nMay 16, 1889.\n1. Assignment on ebbob\u2014/or what cause\u2014and by whom\u2014as to judgment entered pro forma, by consent. A party can not complain of an \u2022error which he has himself induced the court to make, or has consented to.\n2. So where the judgment or decree of the trial court is affirmed by the Appellate Court, pro forma, on the motion of the appellant, under \u2022a stipulation of the parties that the decree or judgment shall be so \u2022affirmed, the appellant, on an appeal to this court, can not assign for \u2022error the judgment of the Appellate Court so entered at his request.\n3. Appellate Coubt\u2014duty to hear and decide cases on the merits. Where a case is taken to the Appellate Court, it is the duty of that court to hear and decide it on its own judgment, and file a written opinion, briefly giving its reasons for its decision.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014 heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook \u2022county; the Hon. Henry M. Shepard, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Walker & Eddy, for the appellant.\nMr. H. W. Wolseley, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0583-01",
  "first_page_order": 583,
  "last_page_order": 584
}