{
  "id": 2729813,
  "name": "Turner Taylor, Appellant, v. Carrie Taylor, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1911-05-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "101",
  "last_page": "102",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "162 Ill. App. 101"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1952,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "sha256": "3bece530976cd9042de223953ad84668d0f25289a23dec262d978abe30788223",
    "simhash": "1:2bf9bfa4e89c6abc",
    "word_count": 313
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:35.474007+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Turner Taylor, Appellant, v. Carrie Taylor, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nOn January 20, 1910, appellant filed his bill in equity against appellee for divorce upon the ground of desertion, Appellee answered the bill denying its material allegations and also filed certain affidavits in support of her motion for an order on appellant to pay her such amount as should be necessary to enable her to defend the suit and for solicitors\u2019 fees and costs and expenses. Appellant filed his exceptions to appellee\u2019s answer which exceptions were overruled by the chancellor and an order entered requiring appellant to pay to appellee $100 for her reasonable and necessary solicitor\u2019s fees. This appeal is prosecuted to reverse such order.\nAppellant argues at length against the propriety of the decree overruling his exceptions to appellee\u2019s answer, but such decree was interlocutory only and no appeal lies therefrom. The answer of appellee as it now stands presents a complete defense to the cause of action alleged in appellant\u2019s bill, and as it is not urged that the order for the payment of solicitor\u2019s fees is not justified, save for the reason that, the exceptions to the answer should have been sustained, it necessarily follows that such order should be affirmed. Accordingly the order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jesse E. Hoffman, De Mange, Gillespie & De Mange and Welty, Sterling & Whitmore, for appellant.",
      "Owen & Owen and Barry & Morrissey, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Turner Taylor, Appellant, v. Carrie Taylor, Appellee.\nAppeals and errors\u2014when interlocutory order will not he reviewed. In an appeal from an order granting solicitor\u2019s fees to the complainant in a divorce proceeding an order overruling exceptions to an answer, being interlocutory merely, cannot be reviewed.\nDivorce. Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. C. D. Myers, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 26, 1911.\nRehearing denied June 16, 1911.\nJesse E. Hoffman, De Mange, Gillespie & De Mange and Welty, Sterling & Whitmore, for appellant.\nOwen & Owen and Barry & Morrissey, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0101-01",
  "first_page_order": 121,
  "last_page_order": 122
}