{
  "id": 2774408,
  "name": "Martha Smith, Plaintiff in Error, v. Beulah Plew, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Plew",
  "decision_date": "1912-06-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "222",
  "last_page": "223",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "171 Ill. App. 222"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 207,
    "char_count": 3107,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "sha256": "7ea4ae931d9bba255940dca250a7d28bbf190212e9e198bc89fd96ab759538dc",
    "simhash": "1:4dc155518cbe6e9d",
    "word_count": 531
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:55.214396+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martha Smith, Plaintiff in Error, v. Beulah Plew, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nMartha Smith, plaintiff in error, brought suit against Beulah Plew to recover for board, lodging and maintenance of the defendant for five years prior to the beginning of the suit. The cause was submitted to the court without a jury, and after hearing the evidence a judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant.\nThe evidence shows that Beulah Plew, defendant in error, was twelve years of age in 1911. When she was seventeen months old, her mother, a daughter of plaintiff in error, died and the defendant together with her little brother lived with Mrs. Plew, their grandmother, for a few months. About a year after the death of Beulah\u2019s mother, her father married again and has children by his second wife. Plaintiff in error, the other grandmother, the mother of defendant\u2019s mother, by an arrangement with Mrs. Blew took Beulah to live with her when Beulah was about two years of age and she has lived with plaintiff in error ever since that time, and the boy lived with Mrs. Blew until his death in 1910. Blaintiff in error testified, \u201cI didn\u2019t charge for nothing, I just took the little child, because she was put to the mercies of the world\u201d and frequently expressed her- fear that Beulah\u2019s father would take the child home and she would have to live with her stepmother. The fact that Beulah had recently received a small legacy- is no reason for the plaintiff in error recovering pay for Beulah\u2019s support. The evidence is clear that Beulah has lived with her grandmother, plaintiff in error, all the time as a member of her grandmother\u2019s family without any expectation on the part of the plaintiff in error that she would receive any compensation for Beulah\u2019s support.\nWhile some of the propositions of law submitted by plaintiff in error stated abstract propositions correctly, they were not applicable to the case. It is not necessary to review them, since under the evidence no other judgment than the one rendered could be sustained.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. W. Dundas, for plaintiff in error.",
      "H. S. Tanner, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Martha Smith, Plaintiff in Error, v. Beulah Plew, Defendant in Error.\n1. Contracts\u2014when grandparent cannot recover from grand-' child for support. Where a grandparent took a grandchild two years of age to live with her on the death of the child\u2019s mother and it is apparent that the child lived as a member of the grandparent\u2019s family without any expectation of making compensation, the fact that the child has received a small legacy will not permit the grandparent to recover pay from the child for the child\u2019s support.\n2. Appeal and error\u2014when proposition of law will not he reviewed. When a grandparent sues a grandchild to recover for support and, from the family relation, no other judgment than for defendant can be rendered, propositions of law submitted by the plaintiff will not be reviewed.\nError to the Circuit Court of Edgar county; the Hon. William B. Scholfield, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 5, 1912.\nF. W. Dundas, for plaintiff in error.\nH. S. Tanner, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0222-01",
  "first_page_order": 254,
  "last_page_order": 255
}