Teopold v. People

• Decision Date: 24 March 1892
• Citation: 140 Ill. 552,30 N.E. 348
• Parties: TEOPOLD v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

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.

Tenney, Church & Cofleen, for appellant.

Moses & Pam, for the People.

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 position. By the order appointing the receiver the members of the firm were ordered to deliver over to 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 attendance of such witnesses as may have any knowledge of the affairs of said copartnership; and that any creditor of said firm may participate in said examination. Further ordered that the cause be referred to the master for the purpose of permitting creditors of the partnership to file their proofs of claims with the master within 60 days after the expiration of notice published four successive weeks, and mailed to each creditor. On the 8th of the same month the master reported that Henry Leopold had on the 26th of November, in behalf of said firm, made an assignment of its property to the receiver. The assignment which accompanies the report describes no property or books. He also reported on the 12th of that month that, after being duly subpoenaed, both Henry and Charles M. Leopold refused to appear before him and submit to an examination, as ordered by the court. Thereupon a rule issued against them to show cause, etc. Service of the rule being waived, they answered, insisting that the court had no power or authority to make the order which they were charged with violating. The court, holding the answer insufficient, gave them an opportunity to still obey the order and be discharged, but they refused. They were then each fined $200, and ordered to stand committed until the fine was paid, unless sooner discharged by order of the court. From that judgment, Charles M. prayed an appeal to the appellate court, with the understanding of the parties that the Case of Henry should abide the result. The appellate court having affirmed the judgment of the superior court, this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellee has entered a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction in this court, and that motion we reserved to the hearing. This motion is based on alternative grounds, viz.: The action is criminal, and, there...