{
  "id": 1495611,
  "name": "Shirey v. Shirey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shirey v. Shirey",
  "decision_date": "1906-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "473",
  "last_page": "475",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 Ark. 473"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "44 Ark. 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893408
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/44/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881099
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/30/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ark. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1884415
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/28/0092-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 3279,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.717,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.262683731656366e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47834410423155943
    },
    "sha256": "854da1e63c2b1299d7c16988088c278e61691aec640b5855d9db456991231a98",
    "simhash": "1:9129972e7449c1a0",
    "word_count": 557
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:58.980272+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Shirey v. Shirey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) It is unnecessary to discuss the evidence which was the basis ofi the court\u2019s order. We have examined it, and think it is amply sufficient to sustain the court\u2019s finding.\nThe divorce proceeding in which the former order was made allowing suit money and alimony, it appears, was dismissed after the allowance had been made and the judgment therefor had been affirmed by this court. This is an allowance in another and subsequent suit for divorce instituted by appellee after the prior suit had been dismissed.\nThe judgment of the court allowing suit money and alimony during the pendency of the suit for divorce is a final judgment on that matter, from which an appeal will lie. Hecht v. Hecht, 28 Ark. 92; Countz v. Countz, 30 Ark. 73; Glenn v. Glenn, 44 Ark. 46.\nThe judgment is therefore affirmed.\nThe petition for alimony, attorney\u2019s fees and costs in this' court is overruled, except as to the $11.50 paid by her to the clerk.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Campbell & Suits and W. B. Beloate, for appellant.",
      "Cunningham & Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Shirey v. Shirey.\nOpinion delivered July 2, 1906.\n1. Divorce \u2014 allowance of suit money and alimony \u2014 res judicata.\u2014 The fact that alimony and suit money pendente lite were allowed in a former suit for divorce is no reason why a similar allowance should not to be made in a second suit for divorce. (Page 474.)\n2. Appeal \u2014 final judgment.. \u2014 A judgment allowing suit money and alimony during the pendency of the suit for divorce is a final judgment, from which an appeal will lie. (Page 474.)\nAppeal from Lawrence Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nSTATEMENT by the court.\nA. W. Shirey, appellant, brought suit for divorce against Fair Belle Shirey, appellee, February 26, 1906. He alleged in his complaint such indignities to his person as to render his condition intolerable. Appellee answered March 19, 1906, and denied specifically the allegations of the complaint. She also on same day filed her written motion for \u201csuit money\u201d and alimony pending the suit for divorce. She alleges that she is without means of support and without money to pay attorney\u2019s fees and costs for obtaining the depositions of witnesses by whom she expects to prove the allegations of her complaint, etc. She'alleges that appellant is worth the sum of $200,000/ as she is advised, and prays for a reasonable amount to be allowed her for the purposes indicated supra.\nThe appellant filed his response February 22, 1906, denying that appellee was without means, and that he was worth the amount alleged by appellee, and alleging that there was \u00e1 suit for divorce pending in the same court, embracing the same subject-matter, and that appellant had already paid a large sum of money for support and attorney\u2019s fees, etc., under decree of the court in that suit, and he alleges that appellee is therefore not entitled to any further sum for such purpose.\nThe court, after hearing evidence on the issue raised by the motion and response, ordered that the appellant pay to appellee $250 as attorney\u2019s fees, and $50 to be paid to the clerk, to be used fo.r expenses in conducting the suit, and the further sum of $25 per month, beginning from the.date of the order, for appellee\u2019s, temporary alimony, and the appellant appealed.\nCampbell & Suits and W. B. Beloate, for appellant.\nCunningham & Smith, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0473-01",
  "first_page_order": 493,
  "last_page_order": 495
}