{
  "id": 5378614,
  "name": "L. Brent Vaughan, Appellant, v. Alice R. Vaughan, Appellee; Alice R. Vaughan, Appellee, v. L. Brent Vaughan, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vaughan v. Vaughan",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,759",
  "first_page": "611",
  "last_page": "612",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 611"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 2724,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "sha256": "0d1670d1847cf6017d061aca6be7ac5ddc1ebf14b556c27aa9558150d94939f9",
    "simhash": "1:9eb4849cf139b50b",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. Brent Vaughan, Appellant, v. Alice R. Vaughan, Appellee. Alice R. Vaughan, Appellee, v. L. Brent Vaughan, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harris F. Williams, for appellant.",
      "James J. Kelly, for appellee; John A. Burke and John T. Fitzgerald, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. Brent Vaughan, Appellant, v. Alice R. Vaughan, Appellee. Alice R. Vaughan, Appellee, v. L. Brent Vaughan, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,759.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Benjamin W. Pope, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 31, 1916.\nRehearing denied February 14, 1916.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for divorce by L. Brent Vaughan, complainant, against Alice B. Vaughan, defendant, in the Circuit Court of Cook county, and cross-bill by defendant against complainant for separate maintenance. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, and granting the prayer of the cross-bill, with an allowance of seventy-five dollars per month and one hundred and seventy-five dollars for solicitor\u2019s fees, complainant appeals.\nThe parties were married October 11, 1899, and lived together as husband and wife until October, 1910, and thereafter continued to live in the same house until December 4, 1912.\nComplainant was forced to leave his house by a foreclosure of the mortgage and rented two rooms with facilities for light housekeeping, and wanted his wife and their twelve-year-old daughter to occupy, such rooms, but did not himself live there, but went to the Lexington Hotel and later to the University Club. He did not invite his wife and daughter to come to him at either place.\nHarris F. Williams, for appellant.\nJames J. Kelly, for appellee; John A. Burke and John T. Fitzgerald, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Divorce, \u00a7 53*\u2014when motion to dismiss bill without prejudice properly refused. It is not error to deny a motion of complainant in a bill for divorce to dismiss bis bill without prejudice where a cross-bill has been filed, section 36 of the Chancery Act (J. & A. If 916) providing that \u201cno complainant shall be allowed to dismiss his bill after a cross-bill has been filed without the consent of the defendant.\u201d\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 725*\u2014when record need not show findings of fact. No findings of fact are required to support a decree where the evidence has been preserved by a certificate of evidence.\n3. Husband and wife, \u00a7 217*\u2014when decree on cross-bill in divorce action for separate support and maintenance and solicitor\u2019s fees proper. In a bill for divorce by a husband where defendant filed a cross-bill for separate maintenance, and the evidence warranted a finding that defendant was living separate and apart from her husband without her fault, defendant is entitled on her cross-bill to a decree for separate support and maintenance and solicitor\u2019s fees."
  },
  "file_name": "0611-01",
  "first_page_order": 633,
  "last_page_order": 634
}