{
  "id": 3224836,
  "name": "Job Pringle v. Mary J. James et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pringle v. James",
  "decision_date": "1900-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "274",
  "last_page": "275",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. 274"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 Ill. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3027113
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/153/0490-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3874,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0908340602096879
    },
    "sha256": "b8ea64133e57b6a4ac3a3e2e75977e984c45ad4bbe168d033232be8c36b4cd9c",
    "simhash": "1:1279dcd25247a01e",
    "word_count": 668
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:44.032606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Job Pringle v. Mary J. James et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe chancellor, on the hearing of the issues formed under a creditor\u2019s bill filed by the appellant, found that a certain deed executed October 17, 1895, by one George James, (since deceased,) and the appellee Mary J. James, his wife, to Jacob G. Hess, and a certain other deed executed by the said Jacob G. Hess on the same day to said Mary J. James,\u2014both of which deeds purported to convey the south half of the south-west quarter of section 3 and the west half of the north-west quarter of section 35, all in township 6, range 4, in Pike county,-\u2014were fraudulent and void as against the rights and interests of the appellant, as a creditor of the said George James. The appellees have not appealed from said decree nor assigned cross-errors in this court.\nThe bill alleged the deceased, George James, was the owner of other lands, viz., the north-east quarter of the north-east quarter of section 9 and the south-east quarter pf the south-east quarter of section 4, in the \u00a7ame town and range as the other tracts hereinbefore mentioned, and prayed for a decree ordering that said last described tracts of lands should be sold and the proceeds of the sale applied to the discharge of the indebtedness due the appellant from the said George James, deceased. The court refused to grant such relief and decreed that in this respect the bill should be dismissed. The court also found and decreed that the lien of the appellant, as a creditor of said George James, deceased, on the tracts of land described in the\u2019 fraudulent and void deeds, was secondary to and subject (to quote from the decree): \u201cFirst, to the mortgage to Faith Dilworth for the sum of $1000, with interest from October 17, 1898, at the rate of six (6) per cent per annum; second, to the homestead and dower rights of Mary J. James; third, to a resulting\" trust for the amount of $750 in favor of Mary J. James; that the court further finds that .the said resulting trust of $750 should not be required to contribute its proportionate part towards the extinguishment of said Dilworth mortgage and interest; that the enforcement of the lien above declared for the benefit of complainant shall be for the present postponed, and the date and manner of such enforcement is hereby expressly reserved for the future consideration and order of the court.\u201d The appellant conceded the mortgage to Dilworth constituted a superior lien as against the indebtedness due him, but questioned and prayed an appeal from that portion of the decree otherwise subordinating his lien on said tracts of land and postponing the same and dismissing his bill as to other tracts and decreeing a resulting trust in favor of Mrs. James.\nThe only questions here arising\" are those presented by this appeal of the appellant. None of these matters involve a freehold or other question which would give this court jurisdiction. The appeal should have been taken to the Appellate Court. Hupp v. Hupp, 153 Ill. 490.\nThe appeal will be dismissed with leave to the parties to withdraw the record, abstracts and briefs.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William Mumford, for appellant.",
      "Williams & Coley, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Job Pringle v. Mary J. James et al.\nOpinion filed April 17, 1900.\nAppeals and errors\u2014when appeal should he taken to the Appellate Court. An appeal from a decree in a creditor\u2019s bill proceeding should be taken to the Appellate Court, where the only questions involved are the subordination of complainant\u2019s lien on the tracts of land covered by the fraudulent deeds to the homestead and dower rights of the grantor\u2019s wife, the postponement of such lien, the finding of the existence of a resulting trust in favor of the grant- or\u2019s wife, and the dismissal of complainant\u2019s bill as to certain tracts of land not covered by the fraudulent deeds.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Pike county; the Hon. Harry Higbee, Judge, presiding.\nWilliam Mumford, for appellant.\nWilliams & Coley, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0274-01",
  "first_page_order": 274,
  "last_page_order": 275
}