Teopold v. People

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWILKIN
Citation140 Ill. 552,30 N.E. 348
Decision Date24 March 1892
PartiesTEOPOLD v. PEOPLE.

140 Ill. 552
30 N.E. 348

TEOPOLD
v.
PEOPLE.1

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 24, 1892.


Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Proceedings against Charles M. Leopold for contempt of court. Defendant was found guilty and fined. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.


[140 Ill. 553]Tenney, Church & Cofleen, for appellant.

Moses & Pam, for the People.


[140 Ill. 554]WILKIN, J.

On the 17th of November, 1890, Henry Leopoid filed his bill in chancery, in the superior court of Cook county, against appellant and Rosa Leopold, to settle a partnership. The bill alleged that the complainant and said defendant were partners engaged in the wholesale clothing business in the city of Chicago, and had failed; that judgments had been entered against the firm to the amount of some $150,000, on which executions had been issued and levied upon all its tangible assets, which were then in the hands of the sheriff of Cook county under such levies; that the assets of the firm consist of the stock of goods and outstanding debts due from customers; that a large number of suits have been commenced against said firm by various creditors, and complainant fears that the accounts and debts due the firm will be subjected to garnishment and otherwise tied up by legal process, and their collection greatly impeded; that by reason of the insolvency of said firm, and its inability to continue in business, the complainant desires to have its affairs wound up and an accounting had between the various members, and their rights among themselves ascertained, the debts of the firm determined, and its assets distributed among its creditors according to their several rights. The prayer is that the partnership may be dissolved, and its affairs wound up; that an accounting may be had, and the rights and equities of the said partners determined by the court; that a receiver be appointed of the firm property to collect and convert the same into money, and distribute it among the creditors; that the indebtedness of the firm be ascertained, and the assets distributed among the creditors as their rights may appear. On the same day the bill was filed the defendants entered their appearance, and consented to the appointment of a receiver as prayed in the bill; and an order was immediately entered by the court, appointing one James H. Burk to that [140 Ill. 555]position. By the order appointing the receiver the members of the firm were ordered to deliver over to

[30 N.E. 349]

him all of the property, books, and papers in their possession belonging to the partnership business, and required Henry and Charles M. Leopold, or one of them, to appear before Alexander F. Stevenson, master in chancery, at such time as he should designate, and execute in the name of said firm an assignment of its property to said receiver. On the 19th of the same month. T. J. Davis & Co., creditors of said firm, filed an intervening petition, setting up their claim and stating that they were advised that no property had as yet come into the hands of the receiver; that said firm had a large number of books and papers bearing upon said partnership affairs, which ought to be in the hands of the receiver. They ask to be allowed to become intervening petitioners, and that said partners be required to appear before the master in chancery for the purpose of assigning their property to said receiver, and surrender all books and papers bearing upon said partnership, and that each of them be cited to appear before the master to be examined in reference to the state of the partnership and its property. On the 5th of December following, the parties all appearing, a hearing was had on this petition; and it was ordered that Henry Leopold and Charles M. Leopold appear before Alexander F. Stevenson, a master of this court, to whom the cause is hereby referred, for the purpose of being examined in reference to the state of said copartnership and its property; that said master fix the time for such examination, and issue subpoenas for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • O'Brien v. People ex rel. Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 5, 1905
    ...judgments of courts cannot be attacked collaterally for mere irregularities. Clark v. Burke, 163 Ill. 334, 45 N. E. 235;Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552, 30 N. E. 348. Therefore plaintiffs in error cannot question in this proceeding the sufficiency of the bill upon which the writ of injuncti......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...(Minn.), 63 N.W. 169; State v. District Court (Minn.), 42 id., 598; State v. Nathans (S. C.), 27 S.E. 545; Leopold v. People (Ill.), 30 N.E. 348; Clark v. Burke (Ill.), 45 id., 235; Thompson v. R. R. Co. (N. J.), 21 A. 182.) A judgment in such a proceeding is reviewable on error. (R. S., Se......
  • Cummings-Landau Laundry Mach. Co. v. Koplin, Nos. 27396
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • May 11, 1944
    ...34;Flannery v. People, 225 Ill. 62, 80 N.E. 60;Christian Hospital v. People ex rel. Murphy, 223 Ill. 244, 79 N.E. 72;Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552, 30 N.E. 348. In Lyon & Healy v. Piano, Organ & Musical Instrument Workers' International Union, 289 Ill. 176, 124 N.E. 443, 444, it was said:......
  • United States v. Grossman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 15, 1924
    ...been substituted for the old coercive imprisonment in case of civil contempt." The Illinois decisions uphold this view. Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552, 30 N. E. 348 (1892); Swedish-American Tel. Co. v. Fidelity Co., 208 Ill. 562, 70 N. E. 768 (1904); Rothschild & Co. v. Steger & Sons Co., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • O'Brien v. People ex rel. Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 5, 1905
    ...judgments of courts cannot be attacked collaterally for mere irregularities. Clark v. Burke, 163 Ill. 334, 45 N. E. 235;Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552, 30 N. E. 348. Therefore plaintiffs in error cannot question in this proceeding the sufficiency of the bill upon which the writ of injuncti......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...(Minn.), 63 N.W. 169; State v. District Court (Minn.), 42 id., 598; State v. Nathans (S. C.), 27 S.E. 545; Leopold v. People (Ill.), 30 N.E. 348; Clark v. Burke (Ill.), 45 id., 235; Thompson v. R. R. Co. (N. J.), 21 A. 182.) A judgment in such a proceeding is reviewable on error. (R. S., Se......
  • Cummings-Landau Laundry Mach. Co. v. Koplin, Nos. 27396
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • May 11, 1944
    ...34;Flannery v. People, 225 Ill. 62, 80 N.E. 60;Christian Hospital v. People ex rel. Murphy, 223 Ill. 244, 79 N.E. 72;Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552, 30 N.E. 348. In Lyon & Healy v. Piano, Organ & Musical Instrument Workers' International Union, 289 Ill. 176, 124 N.E. 443, 444, it was said:......
  • United States v. Grossman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 15, 1924
    ...been substituted for the old coercive imprisonment in case of civil contempt." The Illinois decisions uphold this view. Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552, 30 N. E. 348 (1892); Swedish-American Tel. Co. v. Fidelity Co., 208 Ill. 562, 70 N. E. 768 (1904); Rothschild & Co. v. Steger & Sons Co., ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT