{
  "id": 2858337,
  "name": "Harry O. Whitlock, Appellee, v. Jessie Nickerson Whitlock, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitlock v. WhitLock",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,288",
  "first_page": "165",
  "last_page": "166",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 165"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1862,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3029717176561259
    },
    "sha256": "997fa1f908e236ef7d2b64ee83ea1d2570297b31ce51af8ce7f3c3544cbb3909",
    "simhash": "1:51f68b80702b0398",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harry O. Whitlock, Appellee, v. Jessie Nickerson Whitlock, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David K. Tone, for appellant; William E. and Lewis F. Mason, of counsel.",
      "Short, Davis & Rust, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harry O. Whitlock, Appellee, v. Jessie Nickerson Whitlock, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,288.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Divorce, \u00a7 46 \u2014when finding that wife was guilty of adultery sustained by the evidence. On bill by the husband for divorce charging the wife with adultery, a finding of the chancellor that the wife was guilty of adultery held sustained by the evidence.\n2. Divorce, \u00a7 17*\u2014what does not constitute recrimination. Where it appears that the party seeking a divorce on the ground of extreme and repeated cruelty has been guilty of adultery, she will not be granted a divorce and the fact that the husband has been guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty is not a sufficient recriminatory defense to a bill by him for divorce on the ground of adultery.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William E. Dever, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 21, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Harry 0. Whitlock against Jessie Nickerson Whitlock for divorce charging defendant with having committed adultery with a certain person named in the bill. Defendant filed a cross-bill for divorce charging complainant with extreme and repeated cruelty. Answers were filed to said bill and cross-bill by the respective defendants thereto, denying the material allegations therein. The chancellor found defendant guilty of the charge of adultery and a decree was entered granting complainant a divorce and dismissing the cross-bill for want of equity. From the decree, defendant appeals.\nDavid K. Tone, for appellant; William E. and Lewis F. Mason, of counsel.\nShort, Davis & Rust, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0165-01",
  "first_page_order": 191,
  "last_page_order": 192
}