{ "id": 2540263, "name": "J. W. Parkinson v. Ida Parkinson", "name_abbreviation": "Parkinson v. Parkinson", "decision_date": "1904-09-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "112", "last_page": "114", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "116 Ill. App. 112" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "47 Ill. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5267817 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/47/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 App. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio App.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 294, "char_count": 4938, "ocr_confidence": 0.563, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.482071741606683e-08, "percentile": 0.48576519326030204 }, "sha256": "42dcc7432b1f57f7f4251f953f68aa441f5f14b208a38c2aea7bb127df061e9e", "simhash": "1:d481ebe452061388", "word_count": 860 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:54.720168+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "J. W. Parkinson v. Ida Parkinson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Myers\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellee is the divorced wife of appellant and brought this suit before a justice of the peace to recover for the support and maintenance of their five minor children, who since the divorce in 1903 have lived with the appellee.\nThe case was tried before the County Court without a jury, in which was a finding and judgment in favor of appellee for \u00a7161 and costs. Plaintiff submitted three propositions of law, which were held by the court, and the defendant one proposition, which was refused. Error is assigned upon the court\u2019s holding as to these propositions. Under concessions of counsel for appellee, the only question remaining for this court may be fully presented by plaintiff\u2019s first proposition which, in substance, is the same as the other two. It is as follows:\n\u201cThe court holds that a divorce of the father of infant children from his wife-\u2014-the mother of said children\u2014does not of itself absolve the father from his legal duty to support such infant children; and if such father fails and refuses such support and the mother furnishes such support, she may have her action against said father for such support and maintenance, provided the children are, by reason of tender years or infirmity, unable to support themselves.\u201d\nThe argument of appellant and the cases cited in support of his contention, that there could be no liability without special contract or express promise, are without application, for the reason that the duty to support his infant children is imposed bylaw,and when he neglects and refuses to render that support which is necessary, it may be rendered by another, and an action will lie against him upon a promise implied. In none of the cases referred to will it be found that the person sought to .be charged, and upon whom the duty rested, had refused support, and that what was done by another was in relief of necessity. In the case of Witzman v. Kerber, 28 App. 174, cited by appellant, we find in the opinion : \u201c It absolutely appears that the appellant took the child as her own and adopted it\u2014in fact, that she stood in loco parentis, without any express promise of appellee to pay for the board of the child.\u201d By the adoption of the child the law imposed the primary duty on the plaintiff in that case to support it. Further on, the court says: \u201c The appellant based her entire right to recover upon the express promise; * * * she relied wholly on an express promise.\u201d That case is cited as being \u201c on all fours with the case at bar,\u201d and for that reason we give it special consideration. But we do not find, either in the facts or opinion, support for appellant\u2019s contention. Other cases cited are in the same line, and equally without bearing upon the proposition here involved. The effect of the divorce was to leave the parties, in legal status, the same as if they had never been married. The rights of the appellee in her claim against appellant for support of the children is in no way affected by parental or marital relationship. In Plaster v. Plaster, 47 Ill. 290, on the petition of a divorced wife for an order of allowance against the father for the support of a minor child in her custody, the court aptly defines the duty and obligation of the father as held by all decisions in this state when that question has been raised. \u201c The law of nature, the usages of society, as well as the laws of all civilized countries, impose the duty upon the parent of the support, nurture and education of children. This duty devolves first upon the father, and next upon the mother, so long as they are of tender years and unable to provide for themselves.\u201d\nWe are not called upon to review the facts further than is necessary to understand the contention made by argument as to the law. The finding of the trial court is conclusive under the propositions held. The court having ruled correctly on the propositions of law submitted by appellee, it follows that it was not error to refuse the one submitted by appellant, it-being merely counter thereto.\nThe judgment of the County Court will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Myers" } ], "attorneys": [ "Albert & Roe, for appellant.", "F. M. Guinn, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "J. W. Parkinson v. Ida Parkinson.\n1. Support and maintenance\u2014obligation of father to furnish. The divorce of the father of infant children from his wife (the mother of such children) does not of itself absolve such father from his legal duty to support such infant children, and if such father fails and refuses such support and the mother furnishes the same, she may have her action against such father for such support and maintenance provided the children are, by reason of tender years or infirmity, unable to support themselves.\nAction commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the County Court of Fayette County; the Hon. Beverly W. Henry, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 9, 1904.\nAlbert & Roe, for appellant.\nF. M. Guinn, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0112-01", "first_page_order": 130, "last_page_order": 132 }