{
  "id": 2520966,
  "name": "Conrad Czarra v. Babette Czarra",
  "name_abbreviation": "Czarra v. Czarra",
  "decision_date": "1906-10-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 12,733",
  "first_page": "433",
  "last_page": "434",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 Ill. App. 433"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "124 Ill. App. 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2504300
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/124/0622-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1976,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0817310198393806
    },
    "sha256": "18eecd86af50d9e131397926d66770451bcccd440bce821141d99afa5fa1be24",
    "simhash": "1:5b437683d4f98cc2",
    "word_count": 347
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:56.609878+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Conrad Czarra v. Babette Czarra."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal connected with the same general litigation as those previously decided in this court with the same entitlement\u2014Czarra v. Czarra, 124 Ill. App. 622, and Czarra v. Czarra, ante, p. 430. In this case the appeal is from an order of the chancellor in the Superior Court requiring the appellant to pay-fifty dollars to the appellee for solicitor\u2019s fees to enable her to defend in this court the appeal No. 12,324,. 124 Ill. App. 622, in which we have since affirmed the judgment. It is objected to this allowance, as it was to that which came under our notice in Czarra v. Czarra, ante, p. 430, first, that it is only during the existence of the marriage relation that the common law or the statute authorizes such an allowance; and, second, that such an allowance should not be made without a showing of the wife\u2019s inability, as was the case in this order, which recites that it was made without the hearing of testimony on the motion for it.\nOur decision in this cause must be governed by that in Czarra v. Czarra, ante, p. 430, filed contemporaneously herewith. We regard this allowance as justifiable under the statutory power of the court, for the reasons therein stated\u2014if indeed it does not come more precisely under the terms of the Act of 1874, in that the words \u201cappeal and writ of error\u201d may be held to mean such an appeal or writ of error from any decree of divorce or decree in a matter ancillary thereto.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed. \u25a0",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. S. Dudley, for appellant.",
      "Frederick A. Brown, for appellee; Elmer E. Led-better, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Conrad Czarra v. Babette Czarra.\nGen. No. 12,733.\nThe decision in this case is controlled by Czarra v. Czarra, ante, p. 430.\nDivorce proceeding. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Theodore Bbentaxo, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1905.\nAffirmed\nopinion filed October 8, 1906.\nJ. S. Dudley, for appellant.\nFrederick A. Brown, for appellee; Elmer E. Led-better, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0433-01",
  "first_page_order": 451,
  "last_page_order": 452
}