{ "id": 2460774, "name": "Charles J. Ohman v. Anna S. Ohman", "name_abbreviation": "Ohman v. Ohman", "decision_date": "1907-11-22", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 13,429", "first_page": "251", "last_page": "255", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "137 Ill. App. 251" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "56 Wis. 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8707518 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/56/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2586212 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/14/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5211144 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/33/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Ill. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2577205 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/12/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Gil. 510", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilmer", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. App. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5158197 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/60/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5552549 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/183/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 Ill. App. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5290808 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/93/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Ill. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5426935 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/133/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3337192 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/223/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 Ill. App. 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2470049 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/134/0131-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 383, "char_count": 7507, "ocr_confidence": 0.472, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08105839375191372 }, "sha256": "6973a4cc20762a7cb4832bc3b2222821af7173230951b59ef699bb9e996af4a7", "simhash": "1:5a41d5966b069a58", "word_count": 1329 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:18.403883+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Charles J. Ohman v. Anna S. Ohman." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant in error filed her bill for divorce against the plaintiff in error, charging him with extreme and repeated cruelty. After answer denying said charges and a replication thereto, the cause was heard before the chancellor upon the pleadings and proofs taken in the case. The only finding of the decree entered is \u201cthat the allegations in the said bill contained are true as therein stated; and the equities of this cause are with the complainant.\u201d The decree then grants a divorce to the complainant, and provides for the care and custody of the minor children, and other matters.\nNo evidence was preserved in the record.\nThe sole ground of reversal urged is, that the finding above set forth is not sufficient to sustain the decree.\nThis question was passed upon by this court in Temple v. Temple, 134 Ill. App. 131. In that case a majority of the court held:\n\u201cThe statute permitting oral evidence to be heard in chancery was first enacted in 1849. Since that time the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that to' sustain an affirmative decree in chancery on appeal, or writ of error, where there is in the record neither depositions nor master\u2019s report, there must be either a certificate of evidence or the decree must contain a finding\u2019 of facts sufficient to sustain it.\nIt was said in Standish v. Musgrove, 223 Ill. 500, 504, that in the absence of any evidence in the record, \u201cthe decree must specifically find the facts that were proved on the hearing. This is the reverse of the rule at law. Ryan v. Sanford, 133 Ill. 291; Marvin v. Collins, 98 id. 510, 511. In Standish v. Musgrove there was no finding of facts. In Eyan v. Sanford, the bill was dismissed for want of equity and the complainant appealed. There were in the record certain depositions, and the question was, whether such depositions made a case which entitled complainant to the relief prayed in his bill, and it was held that they did not.\nIn Marvin v. Collins, the decree found certain specific facts only, and the question was, whether the facts so found were sufficient to sustain the decree, and it was held that they were not.\nIn none of the cases above referred to was the question presented whether a finding that all of the allegations of the bill ar\u00e9 true, was a sufficient finding of facts to sustain a decree. So far as we are advised, that question has not been presented to the Supreme Court.\nThe language of an opinion is to be construed with reference to the facts and the questions presented in the case in which such language is used.\nIn Adamski v. Wieczorek, 93 Ill. App. 357, it was held that such finding was insufficient and the decree was reversed. The only case cited in the opinion in support of the ruling was Glos v. Beckman, 183 Ill. 158. In that case there was a certificate of evidence, certifying that it contained all the evidence heard upon the hearing of the case, and the decree was reversed because there was no evidence tending to prove a material fact.\nIn Schmid v. Schmid, 60 Ill. App. 174, such finding was held sufficient, and the decree was affirmed, Mr. .Justice Cartwright dissenting. The only case cited in the dissenting opinion was Marvin v. Collins, supra, in which,.as has been said, there was a specific finding of facts and the question now before us was not presented.\nSection 18 of the present Chancery Act was section 19 of the Chancery Act in the E. S. of 1845, and under that section in an ordinary chancery case, where the bill is taken as confessed, neither certificate of evidence nor finding of facts is necessary to sustain the decree on error or appeal, for it cannot be assigned for error that the averments were not proved. Manchester v. McKee, 4 Gil. 510; Farnsworth v. Strasler, 12 Ill. 482.\nSince 1845 the statutes of this state have contained the following provision in relation to divorce cases: \u201cIf the bill is taken as confessed, the court shall proceed to hear the cause by the examination of witnesses in open court, and in no ease of default shall the court grant a divorce unless the judge is satisfied that the cause of divorce has been fully proved by reliable witnesses.\u201d R. S. 1843, 197, sec. 5; R. S. 1874, chap. 40, sec. 8.\nThis act permitted oral testimony in divorce cases ydiere the bill was taken as confessed. The act of 1849 permitted oral testimony in all chancery cases. \"Under the divorce act, a court is not authorized to decree a divorce unless evidence is heard, \u201cand the cause of divorce fully proved.\u201d\nIn Hawes v. Hawes, 33 Ill. 286, which was a writ of error by the wife to reverse a decree granting a divorce to her husband, Mr. Justice Breese said: \u201cThe record shows that the bill was taken for confessed and the cause 'submitted on bill and Aral proof,\u2019 and the court finds the facts as charged to be true. We have repeatedly decided that it is not necessary in a proceeding for a divorce when the bill was taken for confessed, that the oral proof or evidence on which the court acted should be presented in the record; it is sufficient that the record shows proof was heard sustaining the allegations of the bill. Schillinger v. Schillinger, 14 Ill. 147; Davis v. Davis, 30 id. 180, \u2019 \u2019 and the decree was affirmed.\nWe are unable to perceive the grounds upon which it can be held that a decree of divorce can be sustained on error or appeal where the bill is taken as confessed, and the decree recites that proofs were heard and contains a finding that all the allegations of the bill were proved, and that a like decree, or other affirmative decree, cannot be sustained when there was an answer and replication and the decree contains the same recital and finding.\nThe bill is a part of the record. The decree in this ease refers to the bill as containing the allegations which the decree finds are true as stated in the bill. The bill thus referred to became, upon general principles, a part of the decree for every purpose of construction.\nIn Badger v. Daenieke, 56 Wis. 678, which was a mechanic\u2019s lien case, Mr. Justice Lyon said, p. 680: \u201cIt is claimed that' the finding that all the allegations of the complaint are true is insufficient. We think otherwise. Such a finding is but an application of the maxim, \u2018cerium est quod cerium reddi potest.\u2019 It is impossible that any party to an action can be prejudiced by the use of this form of finding.\u201d\nWe have, with some hesitation, in view of the language used in some of the opinions of the Supreme Court, reached the conclusion that the finding in this decree is sufficient to sustain the decree, and it will therefore be affirmed.\nThe decree is affirmed.\nAffirmed,.\nMr. Justice Smith dissenting.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Smith" } ], "attorneys": [ "Anderson & Anderson, for plaintiff in error.", "Charles C. Stilwell and Dale & Francis, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Charles J. Ohman v. Anna S. Ohman.\nGen. No. 13,429.\nDivorce\u2014when findings of decree sufficient to sustain decree of. A decree of divorce rendered in a case where the defendant was in default and the bill taken 'as confessed, is sufficiently sustained where it finds \u201cthat the allegations in the said bill contained are true as therein stated and the equities of this cause are with the complainant\u201d\u2014the allegations of the bill, if true, being sufficient to authorize the relief granted.\nSmith, J., dissenting.\n.Divorce. Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Axel Chytkatjs, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1907.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 22, 1907.\nAnderson & Anderson, for plaintiff in error.\nCharles C. Stilwell and Dale & Francis, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0251-01", "first_page_order": 267, "last_page_order": 271 }