{
  "id": 2463784,
  "name": "Elmer O. Hahn v. Mary E. Hahn",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hahn v. Hahn",
  "decision_date": "1907-10-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 13,354",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "136 Ill. App. 301"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "144 Ill., 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3081030
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/144/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. App., 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5025008
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/40/0202-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3448,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.548627546539126e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2849753016488606
    },
    "sha256": "9f6003dd135008d85c191388d502b3219d33dec125d416c90cf4df3e18103d9c",
    "simhash": "1:f7a6a6245e19838d",
    "word_count": 580
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:17.402727+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Elmer O. Hahn v. Mary E. Hahn."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe sole ground of reversal urged is the insufficiency of the bill. \u201cIt would be vain to proceed with a suit wherein the pleadings of the parties failed to show ground in law for the relief sought. Therefore if the wife\u2019s petition or answer is without merits\u2014as if she is plaintiff, and sets out no adequate cause for divorce\u2014she cannot have temporary alimony.\u201d 2 Bishop Harr. & Div., section 932; Harding v. Harding, 40 Ill. App., 202; S. C., 144 Ill., 588\u2014596.\nThe bill was filed July 24, 1906. It alleges that the marriage occurred January 14, 1905, and that defendant deserted complainant June 1, 1905. So far, therefore, as the bill attempts to set up desertion, as a ground of divorce, it is clearly insufficient because the desertion alleged was for a less period than two years prior to the filing of the bill.\nThe bill also alleges that: \u201cthe defendant has, for a considerable time past, given himself over to adulterous practices and is now living an adulterous life.\u201d This is only an averment of a conclusion, that defendant\u2019s life and practices were adulterous, not an averment that defendant had committed adultery, and is therefore insufficient. If the allegation could be held to amount to a charge that the defendant had committed adultery, it would still be insufficient because it fails to state the time, place, circumstances or the name of the person with whom such act of adultery was committed, or any excuse for the omission to state such particulars. 2 \u2019 Bishop Harr. & Div., section 1325.\nIt follows from what has been said, that in our opinion the bill fails to state facts which constitute a ground for divorce, and therefore the order appealed from was erroneous, and will be reversed.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. S. Dudley, for appellant.",
      "Ho appearance by appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Elmer O. Hahn v. Mary E. Hahn.\nGen. No. 13,354.\n1. Alimony\u2014when allowance of, erroneous. Allowance of alimony is erroneous if predicated upon a hill of complaint which shows no ground for relief.\n2. Divorce\u2014when Mil for, does not sufficiently charge desertion. A bill for divorce which upon its face shows that the desertion has not continued for the statutory period of two years, does not sufficiently charge desertion as a ground for relief.\n3. Divorce\u2014when MU for, does not sufficiently charge adultery. A bill for divorce which alleges that \u201cthe defendant has for a'considerable time past given himself over to adulterous practices and is now living an adulterous life\u201d does not show ground for relief.\n4. Divorce\u2014when Mil for, does not sufficiently charge adultery. A hill for divorce on the ground of adultery is insufficient if it fails to state the time, place, circumstances or the name of the person with whom such act of adultery was committed, or an excuse for the omission to state such particulars.\nDivorce. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. George A. Carpenter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1906.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed October 4, 1907.\nStatement by the Court. Appellee filed a bill for divorce against appellant, her husband, to which he filed a demurrer. Without disposing of the demurrer the chancellor entered an order that defendant pay complainant five dollars per week as temporary alimony, and twenty-five dollars for her solicitors\u2019 fees, and from such interlocutory order the defendant prosecutes this appeal.\nJ. S. Dudley, for appellant.\nHo appearance by appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 338
}