{
  "id": 5267635,
  "name": "Daniel Eaton et al. v. Albert D. Sanders et al., Executors of Ellsworth H. Hyde, deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eaton v. Sanders",
  "decision_date": "1867-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "435",
  "last_page": "436",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. 435"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1748,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.861082089865817e-08,
      "percentile": 0.53443598449176
    },
    "sha256": "3b09d50e2c9e4018408e1d44b4896646df8bb312dc1f618f720cce689dbd9dd4",
    "simhash": "1:1a53c3ee7fda5fb2",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:56:56.175441+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DANIEL EATON et al. v. Albert D. Sanders et al., Executors of Ellsworth H. Hyde, deceased."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe only point made by plaintiffs in error on this record is, that the decree was rendered without any evidence to warrant it.\nAn examination of the allegations in the bill, and the proofs contained in the depositions, show clearly that the decree was proper.\nIt is true, the doctrine of this court is, that in chancery causes the evidence must be preserved in the record, and this may be done by its being reduced to writing by the master, or by any one else under the direction of the court, or it may be embodied in the decree. Mason v. Bair, 33 Ill. 195; Waugh v. Robbins, id. 181.\nIn this case the evidence was by depositions, which, taken with the admissions of the defendants in their answers, of the amount of money received of complainant, fully establish the allegations of the bill, that defendants violated their contract with complainant, and misapplied the money. There is no doubt, from the evidence, that they guaranteed the money advanced by complainant, and seven per cent interest thereon, and for this a decree passed, and it must be affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hr. James B. Goff, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "Messrs. Waite & Clarke, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DANIEL EATON et al. v. Albert D. Sanders et al., Executors of Ellsworth H. Hyde, deceased.\nChancery&emdash;evidence, liow preserved,. In proceedings in chancery the evidence must support the decree, and must be preserved in the record, which may he .done by reducing it to writing by the master or any one else under direction of the court.\nWrit of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. John M. Wilson, Chief Justice, presiding.\nThe facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.\nHr. James B. Goff, for the plaintiffs in error.\nMessrs. Waite & Clarke, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0435-01",
  "first_page_order": 435,
  "last_page_order": 436
}