{ "id": 5378875, "name": "Anna Werner Prise, Appellee, v. Michael Prise, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Prise v. Prise", "decision_date": "1916-01-31", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,678", "first_page": "609", "last_page": "610", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "197 Ill. App. 609" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "102 Ill. App. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2590982 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/102/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ill. App. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2559703 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/109/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 Ill. App. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 Ill. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. App. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2508450 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/125/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 425045 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/45/0256-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 240, "char_count": 3554, "ocr_confidence": 0.546, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.809917223861553e-08, "percentile": 0.4161578532184695 }, "sha256": "430639644f4cef173113612e53f7c91d6689a89563b6bb833b09e0bdc0e0d674", "simhash": "1:36546798508ba17a", "word_count": 607 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Anna Werner Prise, Appellee, v. Michael Prise, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nMarch 22, 1914, Anna Werner Prise filed in the Circuit Court a bill for divorce against her husband, the appellant here. Defendant answered the bill and filed a cross-bill August 3, 1914, against the complainant charging her with cruelty, drunkenness and adultery with one Jim Bell, and praying for a divorce. Complainant answered the cross-bill, denying the charges therein made against her. August 7, 1914, the cause was heard by Judge Petit, who entered a decree finding complainant guilty of adultery with Bell and also finding her guilty of habitual drunkenness for more than two years before the filing of the bill. By the decree complainant\u2019s bill was dismissed for want of equity and the cross-complainant was granted a divorce on his cross-bill. The decree was entered at the July term. August 18th, a day of the August term, Effie Seeds Wellner filed her affidavit, stating inter alia that she was awarded fifty dollars solicitor\u2019s fees; that the cause was continued to the August term. No order awarding affiant solicitor\u2019s fees or continuing the cause appears in the record; but the court, Judge Wind\u00e9s presiding, on said 18th day of August ordered defendant to pay Effie Seeds Wellner fifty dollars, and that on failure of defendant to do so, he should show cause why he should not be found guilty of contempt of court. An attachment was issued for defendant and cross-complainant, and the court found that he had failed to pay Effie Seeds Wellner fifty dollars, and ordered that he be committed to the county jail for thirty days. He prosecutes this appeal to reverse the order directing him to pay Effie Seeds Wellner fifty dollars and the order committing' him to the county jail.\nThe application for solicitor\u2019s fees was not made until the August term, and complainant\u2019s bill was dismissed for want of equity at the July term. The application for solicitor\u2019s fees, not having been made until after the bill had been dismissed, came too late. McCulloch v. Murphy, 45 Ill. 256; Womacks v. Womacks, 125 Ill. App. 441.\nMotions for allowances under the statute concerning divorce and separate maintenance must be made in the wife\u2019s name, and the allowance must be made to her and not to the parties whom she has employed, and the court has no power to make an allowance in favor of such parties. Anderson v. Steger, 173 Ill. 113; Lynch v. Lynch, 99 Ill. App. 459; Harris v. Harris, 109 Ill. App. 148; Miles v. Miles, 102 Ill. App. 130.\nThe order allowing fifty dollars solicitor\u2019s fees to Effie Seeds Wellner and the order committing appellant to the county jail are reversed.\nOrders reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Baker" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ryan & Lewis, for appellant.", "No appearance for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Anna Werner Prise, Appellee, v. Michael Prise, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,678.\n1. Divorce, \u00a7 140 \u2014when application for solicitor's fees too late. In a bill for divorce, an application for solicitor\u2019s fees made after the dismissal of the bill comes too late.\n2. Divorce, \u00a7 85 \u2014how motion for allowances must he made. Motions for allowances under section 15 of the Divorce Act (J. & A. T 4230), must be made in the name of the wife and the allowance must be made to her, courts having no power to make such allowance to parties whom the wife has employed.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nOrders reversed.\nOpinion filed January 31, 1916.\nRyan & Lewis, for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XX to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number." }, "file_name": "0609-01", "first_page_order": 631, "last_page_order": 632 }