{
  "id": 2652642,
  "name": "George Chandler v. David Dore",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chandler v. Dore",
  "decision_date": "1876-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "275",
  "last_page": "276",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. 275"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 Ill. 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        821744
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/77/0333-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.847072657982611e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7229853941291557
    },
    "sha256": "af9f227232f5c2bdd60754bde25a40ecfdcda163e3b9d76a701b56a5adc5ea16",
    "simhash": "1:c66bad3383e226b1",
    "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": [
      "George Chandler v. David Dore."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe declaration in this case is substantially\nthe same as that in Chandler v. Brown, 77 Ill. 333. It was there held, in order that a decree should conclude a stockholder by a proceeding under the 25th section of the act of 1872 concerning corporations, he should be a party to such proceeding, and that it was incumbent on plaintiff to show clearly a legal right to institute a suit, by appropriate averments of his appointment under a decree which was conclusive upon defendant. It not appearing, from the decree copied in the declaration nor by any distinct averment, defendant was a party to the proceeding, the declaration for that reason was held bad.\nAn elaborate argument on the correctness of that construction has been made in this case, and, after a careful consideration, we see no reason for changing the views there expressed.\nAdhering, as we do, to the construction there adopted, it is conclusive of the case at bar, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Egbert T. MoEeal, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Sweeney & Jackson, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Chandler v. David Dore.\nPleading\u2014decimation by receiver against stockholder of corporation. In a suit by a receiver of a corporation, against a stockholder, to enforce his liability under section 25 of the act of 1872 relating to corporations, the declaration must show the appointment of the receiver in a proceeding to which the stockholder was a party, either by averments or by the decree copied therein.\nAppeal from the Oircuit Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. Geo. W. Pleasants, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of debt, brought by George Chandler, receiver of the Lamar' Insurance Company, against David Dore, who was alleged to have been a stockholder in the insurance company. The court below sustained a general demurrer to the declaration.\nMr. Egbert T. MoEeal, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Sweeney & Jackson, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0275-01",
  "first_page_order": 275,
  "last_page_order": 276
}