
    Alice M. Babcock et al., Complainants, v. Stella P. Hulette, Executrix, Defendants. Helen M. Chapman (Cross-Complainant), Appellee, v. Alice M. Babcock et al. (Cross-Defendants), Appellants.
    Gen. No. 18,867.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 5, 1914.
    Rehearing denied and additional opinion filed June 15, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill filed by Alice M. Babcock, Carrie A. Bitter-and Bessie B. Balston against Stella P. Hulette, executrix of the last will and testament of Arthur B. Pease, deceased. Ellen E. Follett, Lydia Keene Chapman and Mrs. Helen M. Chapman asking for the appointment of a successor in trust and for an accounting and turning over by the executrix to the new trustee of the assets of the trust of which the deceased was a trustee in his lifetime. Helen M. Chapman filed a cross-bill asserting ownership of a note, a trust deed securing it and an abstract to the premises mentioned in the trust deed, which were in the possession of the executrix, and praying that she be decreed to the owner thereof. Issue was joined on the cross-bill. The chancellor found and decreed that the note, trust deed and abstract belonged to the cross-complainant. To reverse the decree, the cross-defendants appeal.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Trusts, § 270
      
      —when decree as to ownership of property sustained by the evidence. On bill filed by beneficiaries of a trust against the executrix of the trustee and others praying for the appointment of a successor in trust and for an accounting and turning over of the assets of the trust to the new trustee by the executrix, where one of the defendants filed a cross-bill praying that she be decreed to be the owner of a certain note, a trust deed securing it and an abstract of the property in the trust deed, which were in the possession of the executrix, held that a finding and decree that the cross-complainant was owner of the property was sustained by the evidence.
    2. Appeal and error, § 1813*—sufficiency of Appellate Court opinions. The Appellate Court in writing its opinion in a case in which the sole point for decision is whether the evidence warrants the finding of the chancellor is not required under section 17 of Appellate Court Act, J. & A. If 2977, in giving reasons for its decision to state the evidence in the case, analyze the same and give its conclusions as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight that should be attached to the various pieces of the evidence.
    Chytraus, Healy & Frost and Edwin White Moore, for appellants.
    John A. McKeown, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.  