{
  "id": 2652440,
  "name": "John B. Heustis et al. v. Daniel G. Johnson et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heustis v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1876-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "61",
  "last_page": "62",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. 61"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        443661
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/25/0294-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1869,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3002033845626244e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9166941779231145
    },
    "sha256": "5157e53d8ec2056ad60466d7791f9ea1d6609d61f13100b33ba9bd19f228b0a5",
    "simhash": "1:6b17c1c9e31bf000",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:17:00.226499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John B. Heustis et al. v. Daniel G. Johnson et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dickey\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nAppellants filed their bill in chancery against appellees, to which a demurrer was sustained by the circuit court, and the bill dismissed.\nThe only question presented is, did the court err in sustaining the demurrer?\nThe gist of the complaint is, that Johnson, one of defendants, has failed to discharge his duties promptly as an executor, and has, by divers plausible devices, excused himself from properly accounting, when he ought long since to have made final settlement of the estate.\nIn Freeland v. Dazey, 25 Ill. 294, this court laid down as a rule, that \u201c a court of chancery will not exercise jurisdiction over the administration of estates, except in extraordinary cases. Some special reason must be shown why the administration should be taken from the probate court.\u201d\nIn the statements of this bill we find no sufficient reason for the intervention of a court of chancery. The county court has full power to grant relief in the case made by the bill. The demurrer was properly sustained.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dickey"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. V. B. Weeks, for the plaintiffs in error.",
      "Messrs. Brown & Souti-iworth, \u25a0 for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John B. Heustis et al. v. Daniel G. Johnson et al.\n1. Chancery\u2014will not interfere with administration, of estates, except in extraordinary cases. A court of chancery will not exercise jurisdiction over the administration of estates, except in extraordinary cases. Some special reason must be shown why the administration should be taken from the probate court.\n<?. Where it appears, from the facts stated in a bill in chancery against an administrator for not properly performing his duly, that the county court has full power to grant relief in the premises, a demurrer is properly sustained.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Kendall county; the Hon. Hiram H. Cody, Judge, presiding.\nMr. V. B. Weeks, for the plaintiffs in error.\nMessrs. Brown & Souti-iworth, \u25a0 for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0061-01",
  "first_page_order": 61,
  "last_page_order": 62
}