{
  "id": 2903325,
  "name": "Pearl Berry, Appellee, v. Edwin W. Berry, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Berry v. Berry",
  "decision_date": "1914-07-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5,936",
  "first_page": "215",
  "last_page": "216",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 215"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2618611
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/141/0126-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2026,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0855669577647191
    },
    "sha256": "9fa973bb321887b74077dbe423d3ab40975ef0f7ed88811c14b60240d36088bb",
    "simhash": "1:69de4125b9ade868",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pearl Berry, Appellee, v. Edwin W. Berry, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Ne exeat, \u00a7 8*\u2014when objection to power of court to issue not preserved for review. Where an appeal bond does not recite an appeal from a distinct order for a writ of ne exeat, which was not questioned in the trial court, the question whether the issuance of such a writ was beyond the powers of the court because not within the letter of the statute was not saved for review.\nWhitney, J., took no part in this decision.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Heydecker & Jorgenson and E. V. Orvis, for appellant.",
      "H. C. Coulson and R. F. Fowler, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pearl Berry, Appellee, v. Edwin W. Berry, Appellant.\nGen. No. 5,936.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Husband and wife, \u00a7 267 \u2014when decree for separate maintenance will not be disturbed. Where a decree for separate maintenance is entered upon conflicting evidence, it will not be disturbed on review, if there is sufficient evidence to support complainant\u2019s contention.\n2. Husband and wife, \u00a7 249*\u2014solicitors\u2019 fees not excessive. An allowance of fifty dollars for solicitors\u2019 fees in an action for separate maintenance is held not to be excessive, there being no question as-to the court\u2019s right to make such an allowance.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Charles Whitney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 31, 1914.\nRehearing denied October 8, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Pearl Berry against Edwin W. Berry for separate maintenance. From a decree for separate maintenance and for solicitors\u2019 fees and costs of suit and custody of a child three years of age, defendant appeals.\nUpon the question of issuing a writ of ne exeat in a divorce case to secure the payment of alimony, the court cited the following authorities: Mac Kenzie v. Mac Kenzie, 141 Ill. App. 126; Denton v. Denton, 1 Johns ch. (N. Y.) 364, 441, and cases cited.\nHeydecker & Jorgenson and E. V. Orvis, for appellant.\nH. C. Coulson and R. F. Fowler, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0215-01",
  "first_page_order": 237,
  "last_page_order": 238
}