{
  "id": 236621,
  "name": "Samuel Allen, appellant, vs. Elizabeth Allen, appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allen v. Allen",
  "decision_date": "1828-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "58",
  "last_page": "59",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 58"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 9132,
    "name": "Superior Court of the Territory of Arkansas"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Black. 444",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Black",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1610,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "sha256": "310d29a1d68658bedb40a5d6b25490f8e64c7631865f1d4845395c82b44b4ad2",
    "simhash": "1:bc0dfe7781ccb855",
    "word_count": 263
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:42.619619+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel Allen, appellant, vs. Elizabeth Allen, appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion oe the Court.\u2014 This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Independence county, pronounced in a suit in chancery for a divorce, in which the appellant was plaintiff, and the appellee, defendant. Various reasons have been assigned by the appellant for reversing the decree of the court below. Conceiving, however, that the first point relied upon, is decisive in favor of the appellant, we shall confine our remarks to that point alone. The point is, that the circuit court erred in overruling the demurrer.\nThe plaintiff below filed his bill, praying for a divorce from bed and board, and the bonds of matrimony. The defendant instead of answering this bill, filed her cross-bill praying a divorce from bed and board, and for alimony. This was clearly irregular.\nThe bill should have been answered, and the allegations therein contained contested before the cross-bill could be properly filed. 1 Harrison\u2019s Chancery, 35; 3 Black. 444-448. In the case of Lewis v. Lewis, 3 Johnson\u2019s Chancery Rep. 519, the chancellor refused to grant alimony to the wife before she answered, because it did not appear whether she intended to defend herself against the charges in the bill. \"We feel no difficulty in reversing the decree of the court below.\nDecree reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel Allen, appellant, vs. Elizabeth Allen, appellee.\n1. A defendant cannot file a cross-bill until the original bill is answered.\n2. Alimony will not bo granted to a wife before she answers.\nApril, 1828.\n\u2014 Appeal from Independence Circuit Court, determined before Benjamin Johnson, Thomas P. Eskridge, and William Trimble, judges."
  },
  "file_name": "0058-01",
  "first_page_order": 74,
  "last_page_order": 75
}