{
  "id": 5372659,
  "name": "Hattie J. Brown, Appellant, v. Edward M. Brown, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,895",
  "first_page": "88",
  "last_page": "89",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 88"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2339,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "sha256": "5ddc5a6c7de154039280b8bcd3896b0ca02d335143baacfb8967572c3568dce9",
    "simhash": "1:c870db346d97289c",
    "word_count": 387
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hattie J. Brown, Appellant, v. Edward M. Brown, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chytraus, Healy & Frost and Edwin White Moore, for appellant.",
      "Bluim & Teed, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hattie J. Brown, Appellant, v. Edward M. Brown, Appellee.\nGen. No. 19,895.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nTransferred to Supreme Court.\nOpinion filed April 23, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Hattie J. Brown against Edward M. Brown praying for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The bill alleged that after the marriage complainant bought real estate with her own money, that the defendant without complainant\u2019s knowledge and consent procured the insertion of his name as a grantee jointly with complainant, and that defendant thereafter refused to release to her his interest thus acquired. The bill prayed for a decree requiring defendant to execute such release and convey to complainant all his interest in the real estate. The court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and complainant appeals.\nThe appellant assigned as errors the action of the court in refusing a decree of divorce and also in refusing to require appellee to release and convey to complainant his interest in said real estate.\nChytraus, Healy & Frost and Edwin White Moore, for appellant.\nBluim & Teed, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 147 \u2014when decree in divorce proceeding involves a freehold. A decree dismissing a bill for divorce held to involve a freehold authorizing a transfer of an appeal perfected in the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court, where the pleadings presented two distinct issues, one whether complainant was entitled to a divorce and the other whether she was entitled to a decree for a conveyance of real estate.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1718 \u2014when freehold not waived by appeal to Appellate Court.' Praying and perfecting an appeal to the Appellate Court and assigning errors which such court has jurisdiction to determine, held not to constitute a waiver or abandonment of the question whether a freehold is involved, where the appellant made his motion for a transfer of the appeal to the Supreme Court before any briefs or abstracts were filed in the Appellate Court.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0088-01",
  "first_page_order": 134,
  "last_page_order": 135
}